Ramesh Hanuman Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Applicant sought quashing of a sessions trial under Sections 363 and 366 IPC based on a written compromise with the complainant. The High Court directed the trial court to verify the compromise within two months and report back, staying coercive measures meanwhile.
What did the court decide?
Interim protection: no coercive measures against applicant; trial court to verify compromise within two months and report.
What the court decided
Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 514 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramesh Hanuman Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shubham Kumar,G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shubham Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 597 of 2011 (State Vs. Ramesh Hanuman Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime No. 250 of 2011, under Sections- 363 and 366 of I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaula, District- Agra, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C.- Ist Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.
Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sessions trial proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 IPC should be quashed in view of a compromise between the parties.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Ramesh Hanuman Chauhan
- respondent
Opposite Party No. 2
Coram
Gautam Chowdhary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/514/2025
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Case IS Not Allocated TO Court.
- Order 2 · Case IS Not Allocated TO Court.
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Kishan Singh and Another vs Jaspal Singh Gandhi and 3 Others
Rajendra Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P.
Radhey Shyam Working as Group D Employee in Basti Forest Range Social Forestry Division, Basti vs Sri Anil Kumar Addirtional Chief Secretary, Forest Forest Anubhag-Iii Department of Environment, Fo
Smt Bhawna Sharma vs State of U.P.