Disposed

Sonu @ Juned and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2024/4335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing a 2024 compromise. The court directed verification of the compromise by the trial court before granting quashing and kept proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings kept in abeyance for three months; parties directed to verify compromise before trial court before reapproaching for quashing.

Sonu @ Juned and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36152

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4335 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu @ Juned And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shubham Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shubham Singh, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record, and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.

¶8

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate Bahraich criminal case No.9256 of 2019 'State vs. Sonu and others', as well as charge-sheet no.A-187 dated 28.12.2018 arising out of Crime No.235 of 2018 under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that dispute between the parties have been amicably settled outside the court by way of compromise dated 9.3.2024. The original copy of the compromise is on record as Annexure-5 to the application.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 does not dispute the above fact rather he concedes the same. It is jointly prayed by the parties' counsel that on the basis of compromise the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has no objection, however, he submits that it will be

¶12

appropriate that compromise is verified first by the competent court and only then any further orders may be passed.

¶13

On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties' counsel and perusal of the record and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, the petition is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the learned trial court on 29.5.2024 for verification of the compromise. Learned trial court shall verify the contents of the compromise in the presence of parties within a period of two weeks' thereafter and provide a copy of verification report to the parties.

¶14

The proceedings impugned (supra) shall be kept in abeyance for the period of three months from today.

¶15

It will be open for the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings by filing a fresh petition along with verification report given by the learned trial court and also the compromise entered between the parties.

¶16

Office is directed to return original copy of the compromise to learned counsel for the applicants after keeping the photostat of the same on record.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Madhu

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonu @ Juned and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Juned and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

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