Disposed

Nauratan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020A482/17133/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge directed the High Court to file a formal compromise application before the trial court within a specified period. The court held that verification of compromise must occur in the trial court rather than at this appellate stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file compromise application before trial court; stay of coercive proceedings till verification; permission to revisit for quashing post-verification.

Nauratan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17133 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Nauratan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ansar Ah

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceeding in Case Crime No.139 of 2017 (State vs. Nauratan Singh and others), under sections 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Ekdil, District Etawah, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Etawah.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants as well as complainant have compromised all issues mentioned in the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that the applicant no.1 lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2 as Case Crime No.138 of 2017 as Special Case No.78 of 2017 (State vs. Satendra Kumar and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ekdil, District Etawah, in which this Court vide order dated 05.04.2018 allowed the Application u/s 482 No.11181 of 2018 in terms of compromise.

¶8

The present FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 Shayam Babu s/o Arjun Singh, on whose information proceeding has been initiated against the applicants. Now Shyam Babu s/o Arjun Singh does not want to pursue the prosecution and would have no objection in case this Court in its discretion and in order to secure ends of justice finds it fit to quash the impugned chargesheet.

¶9

Both the learned counsel for the applicants and the complainant/opposite party have invited the attention of the Court to the fact that a joint compromise affidavit sworn by Shyam Babu s/o Arjun Singh and also Nauratan Singh, applicant no.1 s/o Vidya Ram joint compromise dated 09.05.2020 has been filed.

¶10

It is submitted that no compromise application has yet been

¶11

filed before the concerned court below, where criminal proceeding is pending against the applicants and requested to allow the applicants to move compromise application before the concerned court below.

¶12

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file compromise application before the trial court on 06.01.2021 where the proceeding is going on.

¶14

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case such compromise application is filed by the applicants before it within aforesaid period, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶15

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 SKD

Nauratan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nauratan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Faiz @ Faizuddin Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Raj Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.