Disposed

Sandeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2024/1983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Acknowledging the settlement between the parties, the order directed the parties to appear in the trial court within a week to verify the compromise agreement. Impugned proceedings were kept in abeyance for three months pending verification.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings kept in abeyance for three months; parties directed to verify compromise before trial court within one week.

Sandeep Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36247

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1983 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent No.2 as also learned A.G.A., and perused the record.

¶7

2.The instant petition has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash entire proceedings of Case No. 1003 of 2022 State of U.P. versus Sandeep Srivastava arising out of case crime No.190 of 2017 under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Aminabad, district Lucknow, including summoning order dated 8.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate III, Lucknow.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner, his wife and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute vide settlement agreement dated 9.11.2023 and the parties have decided to withdraw all the cases including the present one, on the basis of the agreement. It is submitted that on the basis of the compromise, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶9

4.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concedes that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and he has no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise after its verification from the competent court.

¶10

Learned A.G.A has also no objection in case the impugned proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise, subject to its verification by the concerned court.

¶11

5.Accordingly, having due regard to the submissions made by the parties' counsel, perusal of the compromise as also considering the law laid down by Supreme Court in (2012)10 SCC 303 Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, the petition is disposed of with direction to

¶12

the parties to appear before the trial court on 15.5.2024, which shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties within the next one week. The trial court shall provide a copy of the verification report to the parties. A copy of compromise be placed on record of the trial court. It will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶13

For a period of three months, impugned proceedings shall remain in abeyance.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 kkb/

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasan Raja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Saddam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

Akhilesh Tiwari Vs U.P. Ziladhikari, Tehsil Lalganj Distt. Pratapgarh and Others

Brijesh Sonker vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kallu vs state of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and another

Shailesh Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home