Disposed

Ramesh Chandra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2025NA528/19427/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a sessions trial on the basis of a compromise dated 02.08.2024, earlier rejected by the Trial Court since Section 308 IPC is non-compoundable. The High Court disposed of the application directing parties to appear before the Trial Court for verification of the compromise and stayed coercive measures till then.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Trial Court to verify compromise within three months; interim stay of coercive measures against applicants until verification.

Ramesh Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19427 of 2025

¶3

Ramesh Chandra And 2 Others

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan : Sunil Kumar, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 78

¶6

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prem Sagar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash/stay the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 87 of 2004, S.T. No. 152 of 2006, under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 308/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya, pending in the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Auraiya through amicable settlement/compromise dated 02.08.2024 by the parties.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide compromise dated 02.08.2024 placed as Annexure No. "6" to the application. However, the said compromise was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 on the ground that the offence under Section 308 IPC is noncompoundable. However, looking into the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., parties are directed to place the original copy of the compromise before the Court concerned for its verification. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

¶11

NA528 No. 19427 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the Trial Court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned Court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶15

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that Court concerned may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.

¶16

The 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 applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶17

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.

¶19

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶20

September 17, 2025 Puspendra

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Chandra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases