Allowed

Khubaib Ahmad v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2025A482/855/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a charge sheet and criminal case arising from Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The trial court verified the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on quashing criminal proceedings upon settlement, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings qua the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 17.04.1993 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1524 of 2004 quashed qua the applicant; copy directed to be sent to the court concerned for compliance.

Khubaib Ahmad Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6393

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 855 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Khubaib Ahmad Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by Shri Mohd. Vakar Khan, Advocate is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):-

¶9

"(i) to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 17.04.1993 arising out of Case Crime No. 31/1993, Under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., pertaining to Police Station- Kaisarganj, District- Bahraich as well as the entire further criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1524 of 2004 "State Vs. Anis & Others" pending before the learned Civil Judge (S.D)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baharaich, in terms of compromise dated 21.08.2024, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this application."

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.251 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 13.01.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶11

It appears from the order dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure No.5) 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 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.

¶14

Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1524 of 2004 "State Vs. Anis & Others", arising out of Case Crime No.31/1993, Under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., pertaining to Police Station- Kaisarganj, District- Bahraich, pending before the learned Civil Judge (S.D)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baharaich, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 30.1.2025

¶17

ML/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khubaib Ahmad v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khubaib Ahmad v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Rambabu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 7 Others

Mohd. Yusuf @ Papular and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Saquib and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another