Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13190
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6327 of 2016
Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh And Ors.
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh,Anoop Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mukesh Kumar Tewari
With
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6292 of 2016
Applicant :- Ajay Tiwari @ Ajay Kumar Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh,Anoop Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Sri Sushil Kumar Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Both the application(s), indicated above, has been filed with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2015, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Tarabganj, District - Gonda and with the consent of the parties is being decided by means of this common judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.
This Court, after considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants including the dispute between the parties and the offence against the applicants, vide order dated 04.01.2024 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 6327 of 2016 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and thereafter on 30.01.2024 passed the following order :
"Heard.
This court has passed the order dated 04.01.2024 in Application U/s- 482 No.6327 of 2016, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned chargesheet no. 81 of 2016, dated 16.05.2016 and summoning order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gonda in Case No. 2872 of 2016, State Vs. Manoj Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2015, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC, Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2872 of 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that parties have amicably compromised their dispute on 18.11.2023. Original copy of the compromise, taken place between the parties, has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 20.12.2023.
4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below i.e.Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gonda, as such the compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the court concerned.
5. Accordingly, for the purpose of verification of the compromise, parties of the compromise deed will appear before the court concerned on 12.01.2024 alongwith original compromise deed and the learned court below shall proceed to verify the compromise deed. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court below and the same shall be sent to this Court by the next date of listing. The compromise will be made part of the record. The court below in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise.
6. List this case on 30.01.2024, within top ten cases.
7. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the petitioners within four working days, as per High Court Rules."
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that due to sudden demise of the mother of opposite party, the party could not appear before the court concerned, therefore the learned counsel requested that another day may be fixed for appearance before the court concerned for the purpose of verification.
Considering the aforesaid request, the parties are permitted to appear before the court concerned, in terms of the earlier order, on 05.02.2024.
Learned court concerned shall submit verification report by the next date of listing.
List on 19.02.2024."
It appears from the order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.08.2024 filed in leading application) that the A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Gonda 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.
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 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, both the application(s) are allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2015, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance forthwith.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025/Mohit Singh/-
