Uttam Giri and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47492

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4347 of 2009

Applicant :- Uttam Giri And 3 Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Vinod Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

IA/1/22

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 18.12.2018 by means of which the instant application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶9

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sufficient.

¶10

The application is allowed and the delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 18.12.2018 is hereby condoned .

¶11

IA/2/22

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he could not appear before the Court on 18.12.2018 and his non-appearance was not intentional. Thus, the submission is that the order dated 18.12.2018 may be recalled.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 raise no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶15

The application is allowed and the order dated 18.12.2018 is hereby recalled and the application is restored to its original number.

¶16

On Memo

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that two accused persons have died.

¶19

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1546/2004 (State Vs Uttam Giri and others) arising out of Case Crime No.109/2001, under Sections 380 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Harraiya, District Balrampur, to quash the charge-sheet dated 20.03.2003 filed in the aforesaid FIR as well as to quash the orders dated 08.09.2004 and 18.09.2009 passed in the aforesaid case by means of which the applicants were summoned and bailable warrants were issued against them on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement/compromise.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 10.07.2024 which has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 06.09.2024 filed by the applicants. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their

¶22

dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶24

Now 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 trial Court.

¶25

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶26

The trial Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶27

For a period of three months, the proceeding of Case No.1546/2004 (State Vs Uttam Giri and others) arising out of Case Crime No.109/2001, under Sections 380 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Harraiya, District Balrampur, so far as present applicants are concerned, shall remain stayed.

¶28

The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial Court and a report with respect to this

¶29

effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order.

¶30

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed dated 10.07.2025 to learned counsel for the applicants within a week after retaining a photocopy thereof on record.

¶31

[Shree Prakash Singh, J.]

¶32

Order Date :- 12.8.2025 MVS/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Uttam Giri and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Giri and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen @ Kalutey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Muzaffar Zulfiqar Naqvi @ Minhal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Irfan @ Irfan Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Dileep Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Secy U.P Govt and Anoth

Ravindra Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Satya Prakash Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. and Another