Rinki Usha Devi v. Subodh Kumar) under Section

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Instant application has been moved on behalf of the husband assailing the proceedings initiated under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per his submission, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and inked settlement agreement dated 07.02.2024. Based on the said settlement agreement, two cases being Application U/S 482 No.8731 of 2023 (Subodh Kumar vs. State of U.P. And Another) and Application U/S 482 No.8527 of 2023 (Smt. Asha Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. And Another) have been decided finally vide order dated 15.01.2025 by this Court. Copy of the settlement agreement dated 07.02.2024 is filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.11.2024, which is quoted herein below :- "ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE INTERIM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This INTERIM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 07.02.2024. 2 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 between Subodh Kumar (Applicant-Husband) and Smt. Rinki alias Ursha Devi (O.P. No.2-Wife) WHEREAS 1) Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/s 482 No. 8731 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court. 2) The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated

15.03.2023 passed by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J. 3) The parties agreed that Mr. N.S. Chahar and Ms. Kavita Tomar, Advocates would act as their Conciliators/Mediators, in the Mediation Case No. 3372/2023. 4) Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation

23.08.2023,

13.09.2023,

11.10.2023,

22.11.2023, 13.12.2023 and 10.01.2024 and the parties have with the assistance of Mediators/Conciliators voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving, the above-mentioned disputes and differences. 5) The marriage of Subodh Kumar (Applicant -Husband) and Smt. Rinki @ Ursha Devi (O.P. No. 2- Wife) was solemnized on 02.07.2017. Out of aforesaid wedlock, the parties have no issue. The parties started are living separately since December, 2017. 6) The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrive at this Settlement/Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators. 7) The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto :- a) That earlier on 11.10.2023, the parties entered into an interim settlement and decided to live together as husband and wife but they failed to restore their relations, as such, now they have decided to part their ways by filing a divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Budaun on or before 25.01.2024 and shall produce certified copy of the divorce petition before the Centre on the next date fixed Le. 07.02.2024. b) That it has been consented and agreed between the parties that the Husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupee Thirty Lakh only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony and Stridhan by way of Demand Draft. c) That today i.e. 10.01.2024, the Husband has produced a demand draft bearing No.012950 dated 06.01.2024 for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) drawn on Axis Bank Ltd in favour of Rinkee (wife), which is being kept in the Connected file Application U/s 482 No.8527 of 2023 (Mediation No.3371/2023) with the consent of the parties and shall be handed over to the wife at the time of final settlement-agreement. d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount 3 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) will be paid by the Husband to the wife by way of Demand Draft at the time of final judgment in the divorce petition before the Family Court, Budaun. e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that husband shall hand over the house hold items/belongings (as decided between them) of the wife to her outside the court on or before 25.01.2024. f) That it has been agreed between the parties that all the cases filed by them against each other will be kept in abeyance during this intervening period. g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall appear again before the Centre on 07.02.2024."

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is lastly submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

5. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of 4 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil favour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or 5 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is finally decided by this Court on the basis of settlement agreement took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

7. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement agreement dated 07.02.2024 inked between the parties, duly verified by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

9. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower court for necessary action. September 22, 2025 VR (Dinesh Pathak,J.) VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Instant application has been moved on behalf of the husband assailing the proceedings initiated under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per his submission, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and inked settlement agreement dated 07.02.2024. Based on the said settlement agreement, two cases being Application U/S 482 No.8731 of 2023 (Subodh Kumar vs. State of U.P. And Another) and Application U/S 482 No.8527 of 2023 (Smt. Asha Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. And Another) have been decided finally vide order dated 15.01.2025 by this Court. Copy of the settlement agreement dated 07.02.2024 is filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.11.2024, which is quoted herein below :- "ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE INTERIM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This INTERIM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 07.02.2024. 2 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 between Subodh Kumar (Applicant-Husband) and Smt. Rinki alias Ursha Devi (O.P. No.2-Wife) WHEREAS 1) Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/s 482 No. 8731 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court. 2) The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated

15.03.2023 passed by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J. 3) The parties agreed that Mr. N.S. Chahar and Ms. Kavita Tomar, Advocates would act as their Conciliators/Mediators, in the Mediation Case No. 3372/2023. 4) Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation

23.08.2023,

13.09.2023,

11.10.2023,

22.11.2023, 13.12.2023 and 10.01.2024 and the parties have with the assistance of Mediators/Conciliators voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving, the above-mentioned disputes and differences. 5) The marriage of Subodh Kumar (Applicant -Husband) and Smt. Rinki @ Ursha Devi (O.P. No. 2- Wife) was solemnized on 02.07.2017. Out of aforesaid wedlock, the parties have no issue. The parties started are living separately since December, 2017. 6) The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrive at this Settlement/Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators. 7) The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto :- a) That earlier on 11.10.2023, the parties entered into an interim settlement and decided to live together as husband and wife but they failed to restore their relations, as such, now they have decided to part their ways by filing a divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Budaun on or before 25.01.2024 and shall produce certified copy of the divorce petition before the Centre on the next date fixed Le. 07.02.2024. b) That it has been consented and agreed between the parties that the Husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupee Thirty Lakh only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony and Stridhan by way of Demand Draft. c) That today i.e. 10.01.2024, the Husband has produced a demand draft bearing No.012950 dated 06.01.2024 for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) drawn on Axis Bank Ltd in favour of Rinkee (wife), which is being kept in the Connected file Application U/s 482 No.8527 of 2023 (Mediation No.3371/2023) with the consent of the parties and shall be handed over to the wife at the time of final settlement-agreement. d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount 3 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) will be paid by the Husband to the wife by way of Demand Draft at the time of final judgment in the divorce petition before the Family Court, Budaun. e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that husband shall hand over the house hold items/belongings (as decided between them) of the wife to her outside the court on or before 25.01.2024. f) That it has been agreed between the parties that all the cases filed by them against each other will be kept in abeyance during this intervening period. g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall appear again before the Centre on 07.02.2024."

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is lastly submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

5. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of 4 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil favour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or 5 A482 No. 15478 of 2023 economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is finally decided by this Court on the basis of settlement agreement took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

7. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement agreement dated 07.02.2024 inked between the parties, duly verified by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

9. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower court for necessary action. September 22, 2025 VR (Dinesh Pathak,J.) VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad