Allahabad High Court
Madan Gopal Alias Gulab And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152978
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12288 of 2025
Madan Gopal Alias Gulab And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Bashisth Narain Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bashishth Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.3.1994 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 15.09.1997 and entire proceedings of Case No. 2855 of 1994 (State Vs. Radhey Shyam and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 71A of 1994, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Nagar, District-Basti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti and all the consequential proceedings thereon.
3.It is alleged in the FIR that on 20.03.1994, accused person on account of construction of passage to drain the dirty water, accused-applicants assaulted the informant and injured with lathi and danda.
4. Applicants' counsel contended in para 12 of the affidavit that both the parties are neighbour and their relation were also good but due to village party bandi and political rivalry, the present false and concocted FIR has been lodged and they does not want to contest the case and both the parties entered into compromise and given an application before the CJM, Basti on 05.09.2024, a copy of the same has been filed as annexure 6 to this affidavit. He further submits that on the basis of compromise, applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 528 BNSS application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.04.2025 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application.
5. Per contra, Sri Pandey, informant's counsel had earlier filed short counter affidavit and later he has filed objection application stating therein that opposite party No.2/informant/injured neither made any compromise with applicants nor moved application before trial court for compromise verification. Informant's counsel has vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that opposite party No.2/informant and one injured-Hareesh, has received grievous injuries but Hareesh has not made party in the present case. He further submits that informant/injured does not want to quash the proceedings against the applicants, on account of false compromise, which has not been moved or entrusted by deponent. In para 8 of objection application it has been stated that compromise was executed back of the objectors and is wholly collusive, arbitrary and against the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, inasmuch as, the victim/injured were deliberately excluded from the compromise proceedings. Opposite party No.2, by way of objection application, submitted that the compromise application is false and frivolous and he has not entered into compromise. The present petition, on the basis of compromise, is based upon false and fabricated, hence, applicants are not entitled for relief as prayed for. No interference is warranted.
6. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 528 BNSS at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.
7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for both the parties, instant petition has filed to quash the proceedings on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties. The informant as well as injured has objection for quashing the proceedings on account of compromise. They have stated that they have not compromised the matter and compromise deed filed here is a forged and fabricated. They have not compromised with applicants. Since, petition is based upon a forged documents with malice intention to quash the proceedings on account of forged and fabricated compromise deed. Court finds, no case is made out to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise. No interference is warranted.
8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
9. The present 528 BNSS application of applicants, namely, Madan Gopal @ Gulab, Jayant Kumar Lal, Radhey Shyam, Nebu Lal and Maniram, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 1, 2025
Nitin Verma
