Disposed

Smt. Mamta Singh and Another v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024A482/10731/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Allahabad dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings, instead directing parties to attend mediation for amicable settlement of a commercial dispute arising from an alleged unpaid financial transaction.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive processes against applicants and directed parties to attend mediation; required applicant to deposit Rs.30,000/-.

Smt. Mamta Singh and Another vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10731 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Mamta Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankush Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.83504 of 2023 pending in the Court of ACJM 3rd, Lucknow and also quashing the cognizance and summoning order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd, Lucknow under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. His further submission is that, in fact, the dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature, which has been given a criminal colour to harass the present applicants. He has also submitted that the applicants are willing to settle the dispute amicably with opposite party no.2. He, thus, submits that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. However, he could not dispute the other factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the core reason for the dispute between the parties is an alleged financial transaction to the tune of Rs.2,63,000/-

¶10

which according to the complainant has remained unpaid.

¶11

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶12

Steps be taken within a week.

¶13

Accordingly, list this matter on 17.01.2025 , on which date, the applicant no.1 as well as opposite party no.2 shall appear in person before this Court to explore possibility of settlement of their dispute amicably through the process of mediation.

¶14

It is provided that applicant no.1 shall deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- within two weeks from today before the Senior Registrar of this Court.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the impugned summoning order dated 28.02.2024 or any process issued pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the applicants, namely, Smt. Mamta Singh and Guru Pratap Singh .

¶16

It is made clear that in case of default in depositing the amount by the applicant no.1 as directed above or on non-appearance of the applicant no.1 before this Court on the next date, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated without any further reference to this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Mahesh

¶18

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

Smt. Mamta Singh and Another v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamta Singh and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saurabh Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ranjna Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Mohammad Tayyab and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ravi Sharma vs State of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sectt. Lko