Suraj Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6035

Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 842 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Sri Sarvesh Kumar, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 16.08.2021 and summoning order dated 12.04.2024 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III District: Lucknow vide which learned Court has taken cognizance in Case No. 38328 of 2024; Case Crime (FIR) No. 366/2021; U/S: 147/323/504/506 I.P.C; Police Station: Chinhat; District: Lucknow (State of U.P. Vs. Suraj Yadav and others) Presently pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III: District: Lucknow as contained as Annexure No. (01) & (02) to the petition, and further stated that quash all the consequential proceedings related to impugned summoning orders."

¶8

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11163 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶9

It appears from the order dated 17.12.2024 (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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 Case Crime (FIR) No. 366/2021 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Jyoti/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Surendra Kumar Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Surjeet Singh @ Surjeet Singh Rathor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Taj Mohammad Alias Taj Mo. and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anurag Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mahesh Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Mrityunjay Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another