Disposed

Shitla Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024/2655/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a U/S 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court directed parties to verify a compromise before the lower court and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicants for three months; parties directed to appear before lower court to verify compromise.

Shitla Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2655 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shitla Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Ms. Lalit Kumari and Sri Vijay Pal Verma Advocates have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State - opposite party as well as Ms. Lalit Kumari and Sri Vijay Pal Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 .

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 144 of 2017 (State Vs. Aditya and others ) pending the court of Civil Judge (F.T.C.)-I, Ambedkar Nagar as well as the charge-sheet No.63 of 2016 dated 15.11.2016 arising out Case Crime No. 109 of 2016 under sections 420, 468, 511 IPC, Police Station Bhiti District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and the settlement has been reduced in writing by way of compromise which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the application. It has further been submitted by both the counsels that parties want to live in peace and they do not want to continue the ongoing proceedings. Therefore, the prayer is that the proceedings may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties.

¶9

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below, as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties before the court concerned.

¶10

In view thereof, both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court below on 01.04.2024 and file their compromise application. If any such compromise application is filed before the court concerned, it shall

¶11

issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise after completing all necessary formalities within two months from that date. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court concerned and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶12

Parties are at liberty to obtain the certified copy of the verification order, if done by the court concerned. It will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise.

¶13

For a period of three months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of .

¶15

Office is directed to return the original compromise and certified documents to the learned counsel for the applicants after the photocopies of the same on record.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 dk/

¶17

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

Shitla Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shitla Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Firoz Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Jagdish Bhatt and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Kalamu Alias Kalam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P.

Ram Avtar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

X (Minor) Thru. Father Ram Subhawan @ Subhawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Suhel @ Suhel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Affairs Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another