Vishal Gautam & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. This Court has passed the order dated 05.11.2024, which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondent and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners…
- Para 88. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioners and the private opposite party have settled the dispute through mediation and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Ranjana Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shankar Lal Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No.4.
Petitioner No.1- Vishal Gautam and opposite party No.4- Smt. Hemlata are present in person.
This Court has passed the order dated 05.11.2024, which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondent and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 06.06.2024 registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0237 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC registered at Police Station - Ghazipur District - Lucknow (Commissionate Lucknow). Having regard to the nature of allegations in the impugned First Information Report, it appears that matter pertains to some matrimonial dispute and thus, we are of the opinion that a chance can be taken to get the issue between the parties settled through the process of mediation. Petitioner No.1- husband and Opposite party No.4-wife both are present in person before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a draft of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) to opposite party No.4 in the Court, which is duly accepted by her, to show her bonafide for mediation. 2 CRLP No. 7564 of 2024 In view of above, let the matter be placed before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 11th November, 2024, when petitioners as well as opposite party No.4 shall appear in person for mediation process and the same shall be concluded within six weeks. List this case before the Court in the 1st week of January, 2025, alongwith mediation report. Since, a chance is being taken to get the issues between the parties settled through the process of mediation, we hereby direct that till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with impugned First Information Report
06.06.2024 registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0237 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC registered at Police Station - Ghazipur, District - Lucknow (Commissionate Lucknow). The petitioners shall, however, cooperate in the investigation. "
It has been admitted at the bar that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through the mediation and conciliation centre and mediation report dated 04.02.2025 is on record which says that "Mediation completed. Agreement enclosed. "
The perusal of the settlement agreement discloses that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they are not willing to contest the cases, which have been indicated in the settlement agreement.
Learned counsels for both the parties have given undertaking on behalf of the parties that the parties shall abide by all terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 04.02.2025.
The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioners and the private opposite party have settled the dispute through mediation and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling the prosecution to 3 CRLP No. 7564 of 2024 prosecute the present petitioners would be a futile exercise and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the entire proceedings of the No.0237 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC registered at Police Station - Ghazipur District - Lucknow, are hereby quashed.
The mediation report dated 04.02.2025 submitted by the Mediators would be the part of this order.
Liberty is given to the respondent No. 4/ complainant to file appropriate application before the competent court of law, if the terms and conditions of aforesaid settlement agreement are flouted.
The petition is, therefore, allowed. September 12, 2025 Reena/- (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.