Kallu @ Noor Mohammad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶12

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

¶13

"To quash the impugned charge sheet dated 06.03.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 02/2023, Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., pertaining to Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Gonda as well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in C.I.S./Case No. 19772 of 2023 "State Vs. Kallu @ Noor Mohammad & Others" including the entire consequential proceedings thereof, in terms of compromise dated 04.09.2025, as contained in Annexure No.1&2 to this application."

¶14

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No. 8155 of 2025, including aforesaid, and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

It appears from the order dated 30.09.2025 that the court concerned 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.

¶16

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

¶17

A482 No. 8914 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

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. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 02/2023, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

¶20

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

¶21

October 28, 2025 Vinay/-

¶22

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶23

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

Kallu @ Noor Mohammad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Kallu @ Noor Mohammad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

Sahdev Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 11 Others

Km. Anvesha Kushwaha (Minor) Thru. Her Father Dharmendra Kushwaha Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Anish Kumar Vs Cbi/Acb Lucknow

Mohd. Majroof @ Majroof Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Pratap Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

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