Disposed¶9

Rahul Makda Alias Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025A482/7056/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 application, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; quashing sought on basis of verified compromise; FIR lodged by father of opposite party no.2 for enticing of major daughter; applicant married to opposite party no.5 with children; notice to opposite party no.2 not served as per office report; counter affidavit and Vakalatnama not on record, office directed to trace; interim order extended; listed 09.09.2025; Avnish Saxena, J.; order dated 14.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Matter listed on 09.09.2025; interim order, if any, extended till the next date of listing; office directed to trace the counter affidavit and place it on record, with counsel for opposite party no.5 to assist in locating the Vakalatnama. ¶9

Rahul Makda Alias Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Section 482 application, premised on a verified compromise between the parties, should proceed despite absence of confirmed service of notice on opposite party no.2 and the counter affidavit/Vakalatnama not being traced on record.

¶6

Court's answer

Notice had been issued to opposite party no.2, but there is no reporting by the office about service of notice upon opposite party no.2.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The office is directed to trace out the counter affidavit and place the same on record; learned counsel for opposite party no.5 is to assist the office in locating the Vakalatnama stated to have been filed along with the counter affidavit.

¶8

Key takeaways

The case is listed on 09.09.2025 and the interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Avnish Saxena, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 7056 of 2024 — Rahul Makda alias Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others (order dated 14.8.2025): In a Section 482 application, counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise; the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of opposite party no.2 pertaining to enticing of his daughter, who is major, and the applicant and opposite party no.5 are married and have children, with the factum of compromise admitted by opposite party no.5 and verified. The office, however, reported no service of notice upon opposite party no.2, and although counsel for opposite party no.5 claimed to have filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, neither that counter affidavit nor his Vakalatnama was traced on record. The court directed the office to trace out the counter affidavit and place it on record, asked counsel for opposite party no.5 to assist in locating the Vakalatnama, listed the case on 09.09.2025, and extended the interim order, if any, till the next date of listing.

Rahul Makda Alias Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Makda Alias Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Umesh Chandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Anshul Kumar vs State of U.P.

Atma Prakash Alias Vishal Gautam vs State of U.P. and Another

Balveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anurag vs State of Up and Another