Disposed

Abhisekh Maurya and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2023A482/43445/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rose to quash criminal proceedings under Section 323, 504, 506, and 308 IPC. A compromise was alleged. The court did not decide the application. Instead, it directed the trial court to verify the compromise deed, record statements of parties and witnesses, and ensure fulfillment of terms within two months. The applicants were given two weeks to approach the trial court with a certified copy of this order before becoming subject to coercive action.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abhisekh Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43445 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Abhisekh Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Sharma,Vikas Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17227 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 401 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them out of court. In this regard, a compromise has been filed stating therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said compromise 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 proper compromise deed. 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 statement 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

¶10

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

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, 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 :- 13.3.2023 DS

¶15

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

Abhisekh Maurya and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abhisekh Maurya and Another v. State of U.P 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 Hashmi @ Aditya Arya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Mobeena and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awantika Medicare Centre through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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