Guddu @ Ram Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38326

Court No. - 27

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7033 of 2024

Applicant :- Guddu @ Ram Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Mratunjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devendra Pratap Singh Kamal,Rakesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main relief:-

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case Session Trial No. 213/2019, State Vs Guddu @ Ram Shankar, arising out of Case Crime no. No. 0030 of 2019, Under Sections-323, 354, 452, 506 I.P.C and 7 & 8 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station-Malihabad, District-Lucknow as well as impugned Charge-sheet No.01of 2019 dated 14.02.2019 ANNEXURE NO. 1 of this petition submitted by the Investigation officer in aforesaid case crime number against the petitioner is liable to be set-aside in the interest of law and justice."

¶9

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 29.04.2024 (annexure no. 7) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 01.06.2024 (annexure no. 8) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 14.05.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 4422 of 2024 (annexure no. 5).

¶10

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now.

¶11

It appears that after considering the averments made in the aforesaid case preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide the

¶12

aforesaid order referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

It appears from the order dated 1.06.2024 (Annexure No.8) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶14

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. 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 settlement 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

¶15

chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶16

Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicant.

¶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 :- 7.7.2025 Nitesh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu @ Ram Shankar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu @ Ram Shankar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

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

Diksha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Uma Shankar Jaiswal Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Hans Raj and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Anant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kapil Dev Yadav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vishal Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another