HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6760 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. 1. Sri Anil Kumar Yadav,Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.2, which is taken on record. Affidavit of service filed by learned AGA is also taken on record. 2. This Court had passed the following order on 21.08.2025:- "List this case on 08.09.2025 alongwith APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 5359 of 2024 (Dayaram vs. State of U.P. and another). Let opposite party No.2 be informed by the SHO concerned regarding the date fixed in the case and ensuring his presence before this Court on the next date of listing. Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the SHO concerned forthwith. Learned AGA is also directed to file and an affidavit in response to instant application annexing there with the proof of information given to the opposite party No. 2 by the S.H.O. concerned when the case is listed next. On the next date of listing, the parties shall appear before this Court. It is to be noted here that the instant application has been entertained, as learned counsel for the applicant has stated before this Court that matter can be settled by way of mediation. It is made clear that no interim protection has been granted to the applicant and mere pendency of this application shall also not be treated as an interim protection to the applicant." 3. In deference to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.2 is present in person, who has been identified by his counsel. 4. On a query from the respondent no.2, he categorically states that he does not want mediation in the matter, as there is no scope of settlement, because the property of the respondent no.2 has been grabbed by the petitioners and they are not ready to return the same. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dayaram And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. The petitioners are also not present in person in compliance of the order passed by this Court, therefore, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in settlement in the matter. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence mentioned in the impugned order are punishable with imprisonment for less than 7 years, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, which could not be disputed by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA. 7. In view of above, the petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. September 25, 2025 Akanksha Sri/- A482 No. 6760 of 2025 2 (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench