Disposed

Taslimunnisa and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024A482/5917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking stay of criminal proceedings pending the filing and verification of a compromise deed by the Trial Court, directing no coercive action for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to file compromise before Trial Court; coercive action stayed for six weeks; applicants allowed to approach this court again for quashing.

Taslimunnisa and Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45416

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5917 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Taslimunnisa And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abdhesh Chandra Dwivedi,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, 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 applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners to stay the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11080 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2017 under Section 452, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kudwar, District-Sultanpur pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 21, District-Sultanpur as also the summoning order dated 23.03.2018.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:-

¶12

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

¶13

from today.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Vinay/-

¶21

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

Taslimunnisa and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taslimunnisa and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 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

Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Raviker Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rajesh Jaiswal @ Gudda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow

Suraj Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shaleesh Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another