Justice Saurabh Lavania of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has recalled an earlier order dated 12 February 2025 that had quashed criminal proceedings against four applicants, after finding that the court was misled by suppression of material facts. The court observed that victims who had refused compromise were deliberately not impleaded, constituting fraud. Costs of ₹25,000 each were imposed on the accused, and the concerned advocate was warned after an unconditional apology.
Background:
The case originated from FIR No. 86 of 2017 lodged at Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308, 324, 325, 304, 147, and 148 IPC. The complainant Salma alleged that the applicants—Javed Ahmad @ Javed, Sartaj, Mo. Zafar @ Jafar, and Hameedan @ Hameeda—had assaulted her brother Taufiq, who later succumbed to injuries, and also injured several other family members.
Earlier, the court had quashed the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2017 on 12 February 2025 based on a reported compromise between the applicants and one victim, Mohammad Naseem. However, it was later brought to the court’s notice that other victims—Majrub, Mo. Salman, Mufidul, Mahboob, Shabnam Bano, and Naseera (mother of the deceased)—had explicitly refused compromise.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis:
The State filed an application to recall the quashing order, asserting that the accused had obtained the order by suppressing critical facts and not impleading all victims. The compromise verification dated 27 January 2025, submitted to the trial court, showed that several injured persons had not agreed to compromise. This fact was omitted in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was prepared by Advocate Shri Sajjad Hussain.
Justice Lavania noted:
“Based upon the compromise with one injured/victim, the prayer was sought to quash the entire criminal proceedings… non-impleadment of the victim/injured persons and concealing material facts from the Court… amounts to misconduct on the part of the Advocate.”
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments including Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant Raroria, Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., observing that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that concealment of facts constitutes abuse of the judicial process.
Relying on the principle “actus curiae neminem gravabit” and judgments on the limits of Section 362 Cr.P.C., the Court clarified that though criminal orders cannot be reviewed, they can be recalled in cases of fraud or when passed without hearing affected parties.
Decision:
The court allowed the recall application filed by the State, restored the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to its original number, and revived Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2017. The court also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on each accused, payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority within one month.
Advocate’s conduct was admonished, but his unconditional apology was accepted:
“The unconditional apology of Mr. Sajjad Hussain, Advocate is accepted and he is warned… not to repeat such type of misconduct in future.”
Directions Issued:
- District Magistrate to take recovery steps if fines are unpaid.
- Trial court to ensure presence of the accused for trial proceedings.
- Office to communicate the order to the trial court without delay.
Case Title: Javed Ahmad @ Javed and Others vs State of U.P. & Another
Application: Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1133 of 2025
