Allowed¶8

Ganpat and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025A482/9138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 482 CrPC quashing; compromise-based quashing of criminal proceedings; Session Trial No. 221 of 2004; State v. Radheyshyam and others; Case Crime No. 259-A of 2001; P.S. Ramkola; District Kushinagar; IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 352, 336, 452; Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padraun; reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296; court-verified compromise; no objection by opposite party nos. 2 to 7 and State/AGA; applicants Ganpat and 6 others; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; further proceedings of Session Trial No.221 of 2004 (State Vs. Radheyshyam and others) pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padraun, quashed. ¶8

Ganpat and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the compromise entered into between the applicants and opposite party nos. 2 to 7 (already verified by the court concerned), the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 221 of 2004 should be quashed.

¶4

Court's answer

Since the applicants and opposite party nos. 2 to 7 had entered into a compromise already verified by the court concerned, and taking note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (AIR 2019 SC 1296) together with the facts of the matter, it is in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed in respect of the applicants.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The further proceeding of Session Trial No. 221 of 2004 (State Vs. Radheyshyam and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259-A of 2001, under the aforesaid IPC sections, pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padraun, are hereby quashed.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 9138 of 2024 — Ganpat and 6 others v. State of U.P. and 6 others (decided September 11, 2025): Acting on a compromise between the applicants and opposite party nos. 2 to 7 that had already been verified by the trial court (verification report on record), and taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296, the Court held it to be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned proceedings, and accordingly quashed the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 221 of 2004 (State v. Radheyshyam and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259-A of 2001, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 352, 336, 452 IPC, P.S. Ramkola, District Kushinagar, pending before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padraun. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed; opposite party nos. 2 to 7 and the State had raised no objection.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9138 of 2024

Ganpat And 6 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Kaushal Kishor
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Bishram Tiwari, G.A.
Court No.- 89

¶9

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶10

The case is taken up on mentioning.

¶11

Heard Sri Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Upendra Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Bishram Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 7 and Sri O. P. Singh, learned AGA for the Stateopposite party no.1.

¶12

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with prayer to quash the further proceeding of Session Trial No.221 of 2004 (State Vs. Radheyshyam and others), arising out of Case Crime No.259-A of 2001, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 352, 336, 452, IPC, Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar, pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padraun, on the basis of compromise.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants and opposite party nos.2 to 7 have entered into compromise and the said compromise has already been verified by the learned court concerned and a report regarding verification of compromise sent by the court concerned is already on the record. Learned counsel for the applicants further prays that in view of the compromise entered into between the applicants and opposite party nos.2 to 7, the proceeding of the aforesaid case be quashed.

¶14

A482 No. 9138 of 2024

¶15

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 7 and learned AGA for the State have no objection to the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶17

In view of the fact that applicants and opposite party nos.2 to 7 have entered into compromise and the said compromise has already been verified by the learned court concerned and a report regarding verification of compromise is already on the record and taking note of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed, in respect of the applicants.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, the further proceeding of Session Trial No.221 of 2004 (State Vs. Radheyshyam and others), arising out of Case Crime No.259-A of 2001, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 352, 336, 452, IPC, Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar, pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padraun, are hereby quashed.

¶19

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

¶20

September 11, 2025 VKG

¶21

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ganpat and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 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