Disposed

Lallu Ram Alias Sugreev Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024/6851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS by not granting immediate relief. The court directed the Trial Court to verify the alleged compromise between parties within two weeks and imposed a six-week stay on coercive actions against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive action for six weeks; direction to Trial Court to verify compromise within two weeks; applicant permitted to re-approach for quashing.

Lallu Ram Alias Sugreev Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53312

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6851 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lallu Ram Alias Sugreev Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hom Narayan Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been preferred by the applicant(s)/petitioner(s) for quashing criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4509 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 0068 of 2018 under Section 419, 420 IPC, P.S.Motipur, District-Bahraich as well as Charge sheet No. 01 dated 30.08.2018 including order dated 18.12.2018.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise as stated in Para 10 of the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:-

¶12

(i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned Court within two week's from today.

¶13

(ii) If the parties appear before the concerned Court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record.

¶14

(iii) The concerned Court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶15

(iv) The concerned Court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed.

¶16

(v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶17

(vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise, if any, to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned Court.

¶18

(vii) For a period of six weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Vinay/-

¶20

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

Lallu Ram Alias Sugreev Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallu Ram Alias Sugreev Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Moinuddin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Shanker and Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Rohit Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Lallu Ram Alias Sugreev Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Chandra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 6 Others