Disposed

Uttam Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024/8215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court in an application under Section 482 CrPC did not directly quash the criminal proceedings. Instead, it directed the parties to file and verify a compromise deed before a lower court within a stipulated time, granting a stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive action for eight weeks; direction to file and verify compromise before the trial court.

Uttam Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64014

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8215 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Uttam Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sahay Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Rankaj Kumar Vishwakarma, 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, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the private-opposite party.

¶8

Instant application has been preferred by the applicant for following main relief:

¶9

"to quash the Criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5099/2013, (State vs Uttam Kumar) initiated after taking cognizance vide dated 29.01.2008 on the charge sheet dated 05.12.2007 filed in Case Crime No. 300/2007, U/s 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Vikas Nagar, District- Lucknow pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, District- Lucknow, may kindly be quashed compounding the offence on the basis of compromise between the parties."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally

¶13

in following terms:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶22

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

Uttam Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.Anita Devi and Others

Assistant Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C Sitapur Depot Hardoi Vs Mahesh and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager Lucknow Vs Preeti and 5 Ors.

Urmila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Girish and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Arpit Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another