Kalawati Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Dr. Naveen Chandra Gaur v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Anr
Case Details
Acts & Sections
for the parties, this Court on 12.05.2025 passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 says that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and they seek some time to file a compromise before this Court bringing on record the said settlement entered into between the parties. 2 A482 No. 5041 of 2017
3. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Accordingly, list this case after two weeks." Thereafter, on 24.09.2025 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. It appears that applicant has not complied with the order dated 12.05.2025 and today counsel for the applicant submits that he will produce the Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/- on 06.10.2025.
2. List this case on 06.10.2025, on which date applicant will appear in person before this Court along with Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/-, so that the settlement can be arrived at between the parties in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2025.
3. Interim order, if any, shall remain in operation till the next date of listing.
4. In case the direction is not complied with, the interim order will automatically deemed to be vacated on the next date." In terms of order(s) aforesaid, a Demand Draft of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been handed over to Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The supplementary affidavit filed in terms of aforesaid order(s) by the applicant is also taken on record. Considered the aforesaid as also the note made by Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the back of application for taking supplementary affidavit on record, which reads as under:- "Matter has been settled by the way of compromise and their is no any grievance remain pending being for the same Demand Draft of Rs. 1,20,000/- (One Lakh Twenty Thousand) has been received during the course of day before this Hon'ble Court on 06.10.2025. As per the compromise, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings of the present case." Upon due consideration of aforesaid as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 3 A482 No. 5041 of 2017 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu,
for the parties, this Court on 12.05.2025 passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 says that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and they seek some time to file a compromise before this Court bringing on record the said settlement entered into between the parties. 2 A482 No. 5041 of 2017
3. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Accordingly, list this case after two weeks." Thereafter, on 24.09.2025 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. It appears that applicant has not complied with the order dated 12.05.2025 and today counsel for the applicant submits that he will produce the Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/- on 06.10.2025.
2. List this case on 06.10.2025, on which date applicant will appear in person before this Court along with Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/-, so that the settlement can be arrived at between the parties in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2025.
3. Interim order, if any, shall remain in operation till the next date of listing.
4. In case the direction is not complied with, the interim order will automatically deemed to be vacated on the next date." In terms of order(s) aforesaid, a Demand Draft of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been handed over to Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The supplementary affidavit filed in terms of aforesaid order(s) by the applicant is also taken on record. Considered the aforesaid as also the note made by Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the back of application for taking supplementary affidavit on record, which reads as under:- "Matter has been settled by the way of compromise and their is no any grievance remain pending being for the same Demand Draft of Rs. 1,20,000/- (One Lakh Twenty Thousand) has been received during the course of day before this Hon'ble Court on 06.10.2025. As per the compromise, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings of the present case." Upon due consideration of aforesaid as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 3 A482 No. 5041 of 2017 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu,