Allahabad High Court
Sanket Verma @ Anil Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru Sec. Home Deptt. And ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15542
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2358 of 2025
Applicant :- Sanket Verma @ Anil Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Sec. Home Deptt. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Shashank Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ayush Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to quash the impugned criminal proceeding in Session Trial no. 831/2016, arising out of case crime no. 537/2015, FIR no. 0467/2015, U/s 307,504 IPC, at PS- Madiyaon, District Lucknow, may kindly be decided in terms of compromise, between the O.P. no. 2 and the Petitioner they have entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the court as such, they do not want to contest the case further. Annexed as Annexure No.2.
It is further prayed that the dispute is of personal nature and does not affect the society, as such, the case be decided on the basis of compromise, in the interest of Justice."
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.950 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
Relevant portion of the said order dated 04.02.2025 reads as under.
"Sri Ayush Pratap Singh, Advocate, says that he has uploaded his Vakalatnama on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Instant application has been preferred by the applicant(s) for the following main relief(s):-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to quash the impugned criminal proceeding in Session Trial no. 831/2016, arising out of case crime no. 537/2015, FIR no. 0467/2015, U/s 307,504 I.P.C., at P.S- Madiyaon, District Lucknow, may kindly be decided in terms of compromise, between the O.P. no. 2 and the Petitioner they have entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the court as such, they do not want to contest the case further. Annexed as Annexure No.2."
Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and also taking note of the fact that it is a no injury case and accordingly, the proceedings in issue can be quashed based upon the compromise in view of various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue including the judgment passed in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466."
It appears from the order dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure No.2) 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.
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, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.537/2015, 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.
Order Date :- 12.3.2025
Anand/-
