Disposed

Neeraj Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024A482/28521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjourned an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from a domestic offence pending at the trial court. The court directed parties to file a compromise before the trial court within two weeks for verification before considering the quashing petition. Till the next date, no coercive action was initiated against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

The application was adjourned for two weeks for the parties to file and verify a compromise with the trial court. No coercive action was taken against the applicants pending.

Neeraj Tiwari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28521 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Tiwari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama along with counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2/informant, which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicants, Sri Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 423 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Tiwari and Others), arising out of case crime no. 283 of 2020, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section - 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Lahchura, District - Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Mauranipur, Jhansi, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the said compromise will be filed before the court concerned within two weeks from today. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶9

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be

¶10

ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case the parties file an appropriate application for compromise before the trial court concerned within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be verified by the court concerned in accordance with law and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date.

¶12

Connect this case along with Application U/S 482 No. - 9032 of 2021.

¶13

List this case on 18.10.2024 , showing the name of Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, as counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 S Rawat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Manoj Goyal and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Shweta Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Seema and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Alias Ajay Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P.