Disposed

Pintu Chauhan @ Surya Pratap and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2023A482/8744/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Section 482 application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Instead of deciding on merits, the Court directed the parties to approach the court below for verification of their alleged compromise deed. A stay on coercive actions was granted during the verification period.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive action against the applicant for two months or until verification of compromise by the court below.

Pintu Chauhan @ Surya Pratap and Another Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102243

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8744 of 2013

¶4

Applicant :- Pintu Chauhan @ Surya Pratap And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Hardev Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Compromise affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. KP Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.674 of 2011 (State Vs. Ugrasen), arising out of Case Crime No.271 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Dubaulia, District-Basti, pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, Second, Basti.

¶9

It has been stated in the aforesaid compromise affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the applicant Pintu Chauhan has married the victim Anjani @ Anjali Chauhan and they are living happy married life. Out of the wedlock they are blessed with two children.

¶10

Learned counsel for the parties submit that earlier by order dated 14.03.2013, the applicants were granted protection. During pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. 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.

¶11

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 applicant may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be

¶12

decided in accordance with law.

¶13

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 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?

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Rahul.

¶18

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

Pintu Chauhan @ Surya Pratap and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Chauhan @ Surya Pratap 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

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

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

Gautam Khera and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobhit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaluwa Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another