Disposed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024CRLRD/390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision referred to mediation; revisionist directed to deposit Rs.25,000, of which Rs.20,000 to be given to opposite party No.2 on first appearance and Rs.5,000 kept with the Mediation Centre. Interim orders continue subject to compliance.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to mediation with conditional continuation of interim order pending deposit of Rs.25,000 demand draft.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 390 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Yadav,Rita Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party No.1 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 by filing his Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist has very fairly submitted that because of financial constraints, the poor revisionist could not deposit a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- as was directed vide order dated 19.09.2024 passed by this Court. He assures that a demand draft of Rs. 25,000 has already been prepared and the same shall be deposited in the Registry within two days, positively.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has stated that opposite party No.2 is also willing to get her dispute resolved through the process of mediation.

¶9

This Court is also satisfied on the basis of perusal of the record and the submissions made before it that the nature of litigation is such that there is a chance to resolve the matter through the process of mediation and an attempt ought to be made to explore that possibility.

¶10

Accordingly, the matter is being referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. In case, the revisionist deposits a demand draft of Rs. 25,000, then out of the deposited amount,

¶11

Rs.20,000 shall be handed over to opposite party No. 2, Smt. Renu, on her first appearance for miscellaneous expenses. It is further provided that a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall remain deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

¶12

The parties shall appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 04.11.2024 .

¶13

The mediator is allowed eight weeks time to find out possible solution of the dispute between the parties and send his report to this Court regarding the outcome of mediation.

¶14

List this case immediately thereafter along with report of the mediator .

¶15

Interim order, if any, shall continue to operate till the next date of listing.

¶16

It is made clear that in case of any default or non-participation of the revisionist in the mediation proceedings or demand draft of Rs.25,000/- shall not be deposited within two days by the revisionist, the interim order shall automatically come to an end without any further reference to this Court.

¶17

When the case is listed next, the name of Sri Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, Advocate, shall be shown in the cause list as learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

¶18

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Shubhankar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shareef @ Mohd. Nazim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hari Nath Tewari and Another vs Sri Nath Singh Kushwaha, Finance Controller, Lko. and Others

Dr. Arvind Kant vs Smt. Leena Johri, Ias, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Another

Shivam Baranwal vs Anju Kasaudhan, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Amethi and Another

Mohan Lal vs Vrinda Shukla, S.P. Distt. Bahraich U.P.

M/S S.S. Construction Thru Sole Proprietor Shashi Shankar Singh vs General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi and Ors.