Netra Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Another

.....each. state has preferred appeal only against that part of the judgment and order, whereby accused shankarlal, nandlal and chhotelal have been found guilty under section 324 ipc and accused dinesh has been acquitted. accused gopal has preferred appeal on the ground that in view of the free fight between accused and the complainant party and the nature of injuries sustained by some of the accused persons, he deserves to be acquitted. it is pertinent to mention here that state has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the high court wherein and whereunder conviction and sentence awarded to accused gopal under section 302 ipc was altered to one under section 304 part-i ipc. in this view of the matter, the state cannot challenge that accused gopal should have been convicted under section 302 ipc. accused chhotelal inflicted blow by cycle-chain on tulsiram. accused dinesh was pelting stones on the injured persons. in defence, the accused had also examined two witnesses. since, injuries were sustained by shankarlal and gopal. it was also contended by learned counsel for the accused gopal that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by shankarlal and gopal and the complainant party was aggressor. as mentioned hereinabove, since there is no appeal preferred by the state against that part of the judgment whereby the accused gopal has been found guilty for commission of offence under section 304 part-i ipc and acquitted under section 302 ipc, we are afraid, there cannot be any scope for considering the conviction of accused gopal from section 304 part-i to 302 ipc. .....averments made in the writ petition.3. in united bank of india v. satyavati tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) scc 110, their lordships of the supreme court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the securitization act, the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said act. 4. shri s.p. sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that the petitioner does not want to question the merits of the proceedings being taken under the securitization act and wants to pay the entire outstanding dues with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in case reasonable time is given to him for making the deposit in instalments.5. the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. in view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petition, by giving the following directions: 1. the petitioner will clear off the entire outstanding dues along-with interest, penal interest and expenses on pro-rata basis. 2. the entire outstanding dues shall be paid in three instalments. the first instalment amounting to 50% of the total amount due from the petitioner shall be paid within a month from today, and thereafter, the remaining amount shall be paid in 2 equal quarterly instalments. 3. initially the recovery proceedings are stayed for a month. on depositingthe first instalment, impugned proceeding shall remain stayed up to the date of next instalment and the process shall continue until the last instalment has been paid. 4. if the petitioner deposits the entire amount as undertaken by the petitioner in the manner indicated above, the proceedings shall stand withdrawn. 5. if the petitioner.....