Dinesh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45371

Court No. - 11

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6386 of 2025

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Shri Ayush Singh Gaur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed his Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶9

"(i) To quash the impugned criminal complaint No.634/2019 U/s-323/354/504/506 IPC R/w Sec. 3(1)X SC/ST Act P.S. Mitauli, Lakhimpur Khiri viz. (Kalindri Vs Dinesh & others) pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No.-1 Lakhimpur Khiri contained herewith as Annexure No.1 to this petition.

¶10

(ii) To quash the summoning order dated 14-09- 2012 by which the petitioners have been summoned for facing trial contained herewith as Annexure No.-2 to this petition.

¶11

(iii) To pass any other order or direction as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶12

(iv) Further proceedings of Complaint Case U/s-323/354/504/506 IPC No.634/2019 R/w Sec. 3(1)X SC/ST Act P.S. Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Khiri viz. (Kalindri Versus Dinesh & others) pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No.-1 Lakhimpur Khiri may be stayed during the pendency of aforesaid petition."

¶13

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.3867 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

It appears from the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure No.6) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs.

¶16

Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435 , according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 , according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Complaint No.634/2019 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

¶17

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anand/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Shakuntala Dubey Vs the State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagesh Rajbhar Vs Union of India Thru. Gaurav Kumar Assist. Commissioner Customs Head Quuarters Lko.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sabhajeet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Aniket Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another