Disposed

Madhav Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2023A482/17478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on a compromise, the High Court directed parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise deed. The court held that trial court must verify fulfillment of terms and record victim statement before any order is passed. No coercive action was taken pending verification.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to appear before trial court for verification of compromise; no coercive action pending verification.

Madhav Prasad and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109481

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17478 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Madhav Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Mr. Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 27.12.2015 and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.05.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1572 of 2016 (State vs. Madhav Prasad and others), arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Jhansi on the basis of compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them. In this regard, a compromise deed on behalf of both the parties has been filed before the court below stating therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said application has been annexed as Annexure no.5 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.

¶10

Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶11

In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear

¶12

before the court below along with an application for verification of the compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties, especially the victim as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶13

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 applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶14

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

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.5.2023 Jitendra/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madhav Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Prasad and Another 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

Manik Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tejveer Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manisha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anita Madan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anees and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another