Disposed

Raju Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/44048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise deed, the Court directed parties to appear before the lower court with the deed and certified copy of this order for verification. Pending such verification, coercive action was restrained for two months. No opinion was expressed on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action stayed for two months pending verification of compromise by the lower court; application disposed of without expression of opinion on merits.

Raju Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44048 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama along with Short counter affidavit have been filed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for opposite party no.2, in Court today, are taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 23.05.2009 of Special Sessions Trial No.14 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Raju Pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No.159 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Purani Basti, District-Basti, pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Basti.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the application wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 does not want to press the case against the applicants. 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the

¶11

Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of 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?

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Rahul.

¶16

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

Raju Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Pandey 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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shahnavaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sheru and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Bhalla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P and Another