Dismissed

Mata Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2023/5998/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a charge sheet and summons, the court observed that the applicant had failed to comply with a mediation agreement and the court's liberty to apply for regular bail in a prior application. Finding the applicant had abused the court's process by not adhering to directions, the court dismissed the current application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mata Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46409

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5998 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mata Prasad Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ghanshyam Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

In pursuance of the earlier order dated 16.06.2023, respondent no. 2 is present before this Court and identified by his counsel.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶9

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 31.12.2018, summoning order dated 13.03.2019 passed in Case Crime No. 645 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki as well as non-bailable warrant dated 10.01.2023 including the proceeding of 82 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, while raising preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this application, submits that earlier an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2799 of 2019 was also moved by the applicant, in which, the matter was sent to the Mediation Center. It is further submitted that the said mediation was successfully concluded with the assurance of the applicant that he/they will pay Rs.9,50,000/- in cash with the further assurance that the sale deed of the property in question, which was executed in favour of other persons will also be cancelled. It is also submitted that the said order of this Court was not honoured by the applicant, as a result of which, the aforesaid Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2799 of

¶11

2019 was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2022 with the liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below for applying regular bail. The application for recall of the said order was also rejected vide order dated 30.05.2023, while extending the time to apply for bail before the court below for 10 days. Submission of the learned counsel for respondent no. 2, thus, is that as the applicant failed to comply the directions of this Court, no interference is required in the matter.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submits that applicant is ready to honour the agreement, which was signed before the Mediation Center. However, she could not dispute the fact that earlier Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2799 of 2019 moved for quashing of the charge sheet as well as summoning order impugned herein was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2022 for applying bail before the court below. She also does not dispute that the application for recall of the order dated 10.08.2022 was also rejected on 30.05.2023.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and going through the orders dated 10.08.2022, 30.05.2023, contents of the present application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2799 of 2019, the matter was earlier sent for mediation and according to the agreement arrived in the mediation proceedings, the applicant had to pay the respondent no. 2 certain amount as well as to cancel the sale deed executed to other persons, but the same was not honoured by the applicant. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 10.08.2022 and the applicant was given liberty to appear and apply for bail before the court below, to which, he again did not comply. It is also evident that recall application moved for recall of the said order dated 10.08.2022 was also rejected on 30.05.2023. As admittedly, the applicant has not complied the directions of this court and also abused the liberty

¶14

granted to him, no case for interference is made out.

¶15

The application is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 VKS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mata Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mata Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Mansoori and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Saniya Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Neha Srivastava Prop. N v System Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Niwas and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P., Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another