KULDIP MEHTA @ COL. KULDIP MEHTA AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
A483/248/2025 · 2025-04-28
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 129046 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 129046 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24239 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 248 of 2025 Applicant :- Kuldip Mehta @ Col. Kuldip Mehta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Yadav,Himanshu Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Yasin holding brief of Sri Rahul Yadav for the applicants, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and Sri Chitransh Srivastava, Advocate who has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2. The vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. In pursuance of the previous orders of this Court Sri Kuldip Mehta and Ms. Ira Mehta have appeared in person before this Court. They have been identified by the respective counsel. 3. It has been jointly submitted that both the parties have entered into a settlement in the mediation proceedings and the said report of the mediator along with the agreement has been filed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Lucknow in complaint case No.78 of 2019. In the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the trial court to decide the said case expeditiously. It has been submitted that the agreement was prepared on 11.3.2022 and in the agreement the parties have agreed not to press the criminal proceedings against each other and to cooperate in deciding the case expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party No.2 is not willing to proceed with the said criminal complaint against the petitioners. It is stated that only because the aforesaid court is vacant the matter is not being listed due to which the same remains pending before the trial court and accordingly in light of the above, a case for interference is made out. 5. Noticing that the agreement was entered into in the year 2022 and after expire of more than three years the same has not been given effect to and the aforesaid criminal case remains pending, liberty is given to the petitioners to move appropriate application for transfer of the case to any other court of competent jurisdiction. 6.
Once the case is transferred to other court, an appropriate
application be moved for deciding the said case in terms of the agreement dated 11.3.2025 and the trial court shall accordingly expeditiously dispose of the said application. 7. With aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 28.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench