Disposed

Kamlesh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024/5265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons and charge sheet in a matrimonial dispute, the High Court directed that the impugned proceedings be kept in abeyance pending verification of the compromise deed by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings kept in abeyance for three months; parties directed to verify compromise deed before trial court.

Kamlesh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50455

¶2

Court No. - 30

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5265 of 2024 Applicant :- Kamlesh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Verma,Abhishek Pratap,Ishan Singh Popli,Ranvijai Chaudhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arshad Jameel,Mohammad Naseem,Mohit Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for State-respondents and Shri Mohit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.01.2022 and impugned charge sheet dated 26.09.2019 in case crime no.0258 of 2019 under section 452, 504, 506, 324, 323 IPC police station Para, District Lucknow and also to quash the proceedings of case crime no.0258 of 2019 (supra).

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there was a matrimonial dispute but a compromise has been arrived at between the parties outside the court on 17.02.2024 and a copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure no.10 to the application.

¶8

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 does not dispute the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶9

It is jointly prayed by the parties' counsel that on the basis of compromise the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has no objection, however, he submits that it will be appropriate that compromise is verified first by the competent court and only then any further orders may be passed.

¶11

On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties' counsel and perused the record as well as considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 for verification of the compromise deed dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure No.10) on 14.08.2024. Learned trial

¶12

court shall verify the contents of the compromise in the presence of parties within a period of one week thereafter and provide a copy of verification report to the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Office is directed to return certified/original copies to the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶16

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Arnima

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamlesh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Ashok Soni Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Surendra @ Shalendra Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Deepak Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko and 5 Others

Mohammad Wahid Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others