Disposed

Prashant Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023A482/42522/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a Section 482 CrPC application to quash proceedings based on a compromise, the court vacates the matter. It directs parties to approach the lower court to verify the compromise deed, fulfill its terms, and record statements. No coercive action is taken pending this verification.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to appear before the court below to verify the compromise deed within two weeks. No coercive action against applicants for two months.

Prashant Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42522 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Pratap Singh,R.B.Pal,Shri Prakash Dwivedi,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. 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 summoning order dated 24.08.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case No.5947 of 2018 (State Vs. Prashant Kumar Mishra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.0120 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Vindhyachal, District-Mirzapur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, on the basis of compromise.

¶7

Learned counsel for the parties submits that informant has expired, however, civil litigations pending between the parties have been withdrawn on the basis of compromise. They further submit that parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the compromise application wherein it has been mentioned that parties have entered into compromise outside the Court. 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 process of law.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., 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.

¶9

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of

¶10

this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the 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 the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶11

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.

¶12

For the period of two months or till the verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Rahul.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Mishra 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

Robin Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Arjun Raikwar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhvir Vs State of U.P.

Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Netrapal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another