Disposed

Shivansh Srivastava and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024A482/790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, though noting the amicable settlement between parties, did not quash the criminal proceedings immediately. Instead, it ordered a verification of the compromise by the trial court within one week and kept proceedings in abeyance for three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to verify compromise in one week; proceedings kept in abeyance for three months.

Shivansh Srivastava and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38018

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 790 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shivansh Srivastava, Abdullah Khan and Hafijur Rahman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Srivastava,Syed Azaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for respondent No.2 as also learned A.G.A., and perused the record.

¶7

2.The instant petition has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 95341 of 2022 arising out of crime No.14 of 2022 State versus Shivansh Srivastava and others, pending in the court of Special CJM, Customs, Lucknow under sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and 66 I.T. Act, P.S. Cyber Crime, District Lucknow arising out of case crime No.14 of 2022 (charge sheet dated 25.10.2022).

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved outside the court by way of compromise which is on record. It is submitted that on the basis of the compromise, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶9

4.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concedes that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and he has no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise after its verification from the competent court.

¶10

Learned A.G.A has also no objection in case the impugned proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise, subject to its verification by the concerned court.

¶11

5.Accordingly, having due regard to the submissions made by the parties' counsel, perusal of the compromise as also considering the law laid down by Supreme Court in (2012)10 SCC 303 Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, the petition is disposed of with direction to the parties to appear before the trial court on 3.6.2024, which shall verify the compromise in presence of the

¶12

parties within the next one week. The trial court shall provide a copy of the verification report to the parties. A copy of compromise be placed on record of the trial court. It will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶13

For a period of three months, impugned proceedings shall remain in abeyance.

¶14

6.Office is directed to return original/certified copy of the compromise to learned counsel for the petitioners and retain a photocopy thereof, under Rules of the Court.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.5.2024 kkb/

¶16

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

Shivansh Srivastava and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivansh Srivastava and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Zubair Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmender @ Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Riyaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sonu Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Himanshu Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Jamal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.