State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Mr. R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Prajjwal Yadav, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vaklatanama in the Court today which is taken on record.

2. Perused the entire material available on record.

3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in Case No. 411 of 2018 (Smt. Sweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party no. 2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Since the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are husband and wife respectively and the dispute between them was matrimonial in nature, the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th February, 2024 for settlement of their dispute amicably. For ready reference, the order dated 16th February, 2024 reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 7.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Auraiya in Case No. 411 of 2018 (Smt. Sweta Nishad Vs. 2 CRLR No. 513 of 2024 Vipin Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the matter is related to matrimonial dispute and the revisionist has intention to settle the same amicably. Learned counsel further urged that this case may be referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court so that they may have a chance to settle their dispute on their own terms through mediation. In order to show his bona fide the revisionist is ready to deposit Rs.15,000/- to be handed over to the opposite party no.2 on her first appearance before Mediation. The Court is also satisfied on the basis of the record and the submissions made before it that the nature of litigation is such that there is a chance to resolve the matter through process of mediation and an attempt ought to be made to explore that possibility. Accordingly, the matter is being referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The revisionist will deposit Rs.20,000/- within three weeks from today at the Mediation Centre through demand draft out of which Rs.15,000/- shall be handed over to the opposite party no.2 on her first appearance. It is further provided that Rs.5,000/- will remain deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The mediator is allowed three months' time to find out possible solution of the dispute between the parties and send his report to the court regarding the outcome of mediation. Put up this matter after three months in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench along with report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. This case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard with this Bench. "

5. Today on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submit that pursuant to the order dated 16th February, 2024, both the parties appeared before the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad and both the parties have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre on 9th May,

2024. The certified copy of the final agreement settlement dated 9th May, 2025 has also been brought on record along with the order-sheet of the present criminal revision.

6. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph no.7 of the final settlement agreement is quoted as under: "7). The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- 3 CRLR No. 513 of 2024 (a) That the parties have already settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and the same is registered as Case No. 1494 of 2024. The parties stated that all the terms and conditions mentioned therein have been fulfilled. They further reiterated and reaffirm the terms and conditions of the aforesaid divorce petition and the same shall be a part of the settlement also. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is annexed to this settlement-agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. (b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the revisionist-husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) the wife which includes permanent alimony, Stridhan and maintenance by way of demand draft. (c) That today i.e. 09.05.2024, the revisionist-husband has handed over a demand draft bearing no. 830251 dated 08.05.2024 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of Shweta Nishad (Wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount ie. Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by Vipin Chandra (Revisionist-Husband) to Smt. Sweta Nishad (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in aforesaid divorce petition pending in Family Court, Lucknow by way of demand draft. (e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. (f) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also."

7. In view of the above Settlement Agreement, learned counsel for the revisionist with reference to the statement of both the parties recorded in settlement agreement that by signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claim against each other with respect to the present criminal revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 513 of 2024 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be quashed by this Court. 4 CRLR No. 513 of 2024

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 could not dispute the above submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that in case entire proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by opposite party no.2 are quashed, she will have no objection.

9. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, and

6. Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021 Legal Egale (SC) 569.

10. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 7th December, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in Case No. 411 of 2018 (Smt. Sweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, quashed.

13. This criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs. October 31, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Prajjwal Yadav, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vaklatanama in the Court today which is taken on record.

2. Perused the entire material available on record.

3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in Case No. 411 of 2018 (Smt. Sweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party no. 2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Since the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are husband and wife respectively and the dispute between them was matrimonial in nature, the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th February, 2024 for settlement of their dispute amicably. For ready reference, the order dated 16th February, 2024 reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 7.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Auraiya in Case No. 411 of 2018 (Smt. Sweta Nishad Vs. 2 CRLR No. 513 of 2024 Vipin Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the matter is related to matrimonial dispute and the revisionist has intention to settle the same amicably. Learned counsel further urged that this case may be referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court so that they may have a chance to settle their dispute on their own terms through mediation. In order to show his bona fide the revisionist is ready to deposit Rs.15,000/- to be handed over to the opposite party no.2 on her first appearance before Mediation. The Court is also satisfied on the basis of the record and the submissions made before it that the nature of litigation is such that there is a chance to resolve the matter through process of mediation and an attempt ought to be made to explore that possibility. Accordingly, the matter is being referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The revisionist will deposit Rs.20,000/- within three weeks from today at the Mediation Centre through demand draft out of which Rs.15,000/- shall be handed over to the opposite party no.2 on her first appearance. It is further provided that Rs.5,000/- will remain deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The mediator is allowed three months' time to find out possible solution of the dispute between the parties and send his report to the court regarding the outcome of mediation. Put up this matter after three months in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench along with report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. This case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard with this Bench. "

5. Today on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submit that pursuant to the order dated 16th February, 2024, both the parties appeared before the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad and both the parties have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre on 9th May,

2024. The certified copy of the final agreement settlement dated 9th May, 2025 has also been brought on record along with the order-sheet of the present criminal revision.

6. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph no.7 of the final settlement agreement is quoted as under: "7). The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- 3 CRLR No. 513 of 2024 (a) That the parties have already settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and the same is registered as Case No. 1494 of 2024. The parties stated that all the terms and conditions mentioned therein have been fulfilled. They further reiterated and reaffirm the terms and conditions of the aforesaid divorce petition and the same shall be a part of the settlement also. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is annexed to this settlement-agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. (b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the revisionist-husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) the wife which includes permanent alimony, Stridhan and maintenance by way of demand draft. (c) That today i.e. 09.05.2024, the revisionist-husband has handed over a demand draft bearing no. 830251 dated 08.05.2024 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of Shweta Nishad (Wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount ie. Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by Vipin Chandra (Revisionist-Husband) to Smt. Sweta Nishad (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in aforesaid divorce petition pending in Family Court, Lucknow by way of demand draft. (e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. (f) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also."

7. In view of the above Settlement Agreement, learned counsel for the revisionist with reference to the statement of both the parties recorded in settlement agreement that by signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claim against each other with respect to the present criminal revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 513 of 2024 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be quashed by this Court. 4 CRLR No. 513 of 2024

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 could not dispute the above submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that in case entire proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by opposite party no.2 are quashed, she will have no objection.

9. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, and

6. Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021 Legal Egale (SC) 569.

10. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 7th December, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in Case No. 411 of 2018 (Smt. Sweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, quashed.

13. This criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs. October 31, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.)