Ajeem Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11695 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajeem Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Sri Arshad Alam Siddiqui, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. 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 graciously be pleased to pass an order to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 401 of 2020 dated 21.11.2020, the impugned cognizance order dated 25.02.2021 and the impugned order dated 03.01.2022, by which charges have been framed against the applicants, in relation to S.T. No. 742 of 2021, state vs Ajeem Khan and others relating to F.I.R. No-0002 of 2020 Under Sections-323,504,506,308 IPC, Police Station-Shivgarh, District-Raebareli and further quash the entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No. 742 of 2021 State Vs. Ajeem Khan and others arising thereon and pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Raebareli (contained as Annexure No. 2, 3 and 4 to this application." It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10696 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure No.10) 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 and the nature of dispute/crime 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, 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 of S.T. No. 742 of 2021 (Supra), indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 19.12.2024 Jyoti/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench