Disposed

Virendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024A482/11277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. citing an alleged compromise. The court declined immediate quashing, directing the High Court to verify the compromise via the trial court by filing a detailed application within the specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with direction to file a compromise application before the trial court for verification within three months.

Virendra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83007

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11277 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Virendra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and Sri Ishan Bhasin, learned counsel, who has filed power on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3, which is taken on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Session Trial No.205 of 2014, State Vs. Virendra and others, arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC, Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise and the original compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the application, therefore, the aforesaid case may be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶9

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 before the court concerned.

¶10

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with direction to both the parties to appear before the court

¶11

concerned on 16.12.2024 and file their comprise application. If such compromise application is filed, the court concerned shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise within three months from that date. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court making compromise to be part of the record and a report to that effect shall also be send to this Court whether the said compromise took place or not. The court concerned will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise. It will also be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶12

For a period of four months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.

¶13

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the counsel for the applicants after retaining a photocopy of the same on record.

¶14

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Rao/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Zeeshan Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Akash Sharma @ Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar Mahto and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Gyanendra Kumar Jha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

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

Deepak Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another