Surendra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Application to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of an out-of-court compromise between the parties. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise within two months and stayed further proceedings till then.
What the court decided
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22830 of 2024
Applicant :- Surendra And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Yadav,Riyaz Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
- Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent and perused the record on Board.
- It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. At present, both the parties have buried the hatchet and they have no grudge against each other. Therefore, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.
- Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has nodded the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and admitted the factum of the compromise took place between the parties. It is next contended that in changed circumstances, opposite party No. 2 is not inclined to prosecute the present applicant and, therefore, instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 307 etc. IPC should be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Surendra and 5 Others
- respondent
Opposite Party No. 2
Coram
Dinesh Pathak
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/22830/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court