Disposed

Smt. Gayatri and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023A482/35786/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This exercise was an application under Section 482 CrPC filed by two sets of applicants seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord. The High Court directed the trial court to verify the submitted compromise deed and ensure fulfillment of terms before deciding on quashing. No coercive action was taken against applicants pending such verification.

What did the court decide?

Directing parties to file a joint compromise deed for verification by the trial court; no coercive action against applicants pending verification.

Smt. Gayatri and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107384

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

1. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35786 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Gayatri And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Pandey

¶4

Connected with:

¶5

2. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35962 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramgopal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶8

Application U/s 482 No. 35786 of 2019 has been filed by three applicants, namely, Smt. Gayatri, Jaggo @ Jagdish and Pradeep Kumar for quashing of proceedings in Case No. 3280/IX/2016 (Yogesh v. Jaggo @ Jagdish & others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura. Five applicants, namely, Ramgopal, Jagdish Singh @ Jaggo, Pradeep Kumar, Hoti and Rajkumar have preferred Application U/s 482 No. 35962 of 2019, for quashing of entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 543 of 2017 (Yogesh v. Ramgopal & others), summoning order dated 13.09.2018 and non-bailable warrants dated 07.08.2019, issued in the said case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 452 IPC, P.S. Farah, District Mathura.

¶9

Learned counsel for the parties submits that the proceedings in aforesaid cases emanated between the parties due to matrimonial discord. Initially in both abovementioned cases protection was granted to the applicants by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the aforesaid case, parties have amicably settled the dispute and have entered into a compromise and a compromise application has been placed before the court concerned, as is evident from the order dated 04.05.2022 (Page-9 of the compromise application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a joint compromise deed along with an application. 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, after recording statements of all concerned including injured witness, 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 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 cases.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this applications are finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 DS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Gayatri and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gayatri and 2 Ors. 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

Pranjul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar @ Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam Parvez and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramgopal and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

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