High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Janardan Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.Trarun Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.14688 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C., Badaun and also to quash the summoning order dated 12.04.2024, on the basis of settlement agreement.

3. Vide order dated 10.06.2024, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order the parties have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and have arrived at a settlement agreement dated 15.12.2024. The mediation report dated 15.12.2024 as well as settlement agreement is part of the record. According to which the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2 have decided that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/ Conciliators on the following terms and conditions:- "7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto: a) That both the parties have agreed to live separately and mutually settled to dissolve their relationship as husband and wife and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun and the same is registered as Marriage Petition No. 653 of 2024 (Smt. Roshani Saxena and Anoop Gaurav). The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is annexed to this settlement agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. b) That in full and final settlement of all the financial claim of the O.P. No. 2- wife that may accrue against the applicant no. 1-husband or his family members, applicant no. 1- husband has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rs. Six Lakh) to the O.P. No. 2- wife towards her permanent alimony including Stridhan and other financial claims. This amount shall be paid in installments. e) That the applicant no. 1-husband had already paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rs. Three Lakh only) through two demand drafts bearing no. 300008 & 896869 dated 26.09.2024 & 08.11.2024 drawn on Indian Bank & Canara Bank Rs. 2 lakhs & Rs. 1 Lakhs both issued in the name of Roshni Saxena (O.P. No. 2) respectively, at the time of filing the petition under Sections 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun and she has acknowledged the receipts of the same. d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount Le. Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) shall be paid by the applicant no. 1- husband to the O.P. No. 2- wife at the time of second motion/ final judgment in Marriage Petition No. 653 of 2024 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun, by way of demand draft. e) That the O.P. No. 2-wife has moved an application in Case No. 481/2023, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Korwali, District Badaun for not pressing the said case, the certified copy of the aforesaid application is annexed to this settlement agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. f) That-it has been agreed between the parties that apart from the above mentioned Case, all civil and criminal cases (if any) filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall also be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. g) That parties agree that they shall not withdraw their consent from petition u/s 13B of H.M. Act. In case, applicant no. 1-husband withdraws his consent, the amount already paid to the O.P. No. 2 shall stands forfeited in her favour and in case O.P. No. 2-wife withdraws her consent from petition u/s 13B of H.M. Act, she would be liable to return the entire amount of alimony received by her alongwith current market rate of interest to the applicant no. 1- husband. h) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. i) That it has been stated by the learned counsel (Mukesh Chandra Pandey, holding brief of Pankaj Satsangi) for the O.P. No. 2 that the O.P. No. 2- Roshani Saxena is suffering from severe liver cirrhosis and therefore, not able to appear before the mediation centre and sign the final settlement here as such she has agreed to the terms and conditions enumerated above and a copy of this settlement is being sent to her on e-mail ([email protected]) and she agrees to sign the settlement agreement, scan it and return it to the mediation centre on the e-mail through which she received this settlement agreement. This Settlement-Agreement has been read over in the presence of the brother (Amit Saxena) of O. P. No.2, who is also signing the settlement-agreement as witness and Counsel (Mukesh Chandra Pandey), who identify the signature of the O. P. No.2 and her brother."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the settlement agreement has arrived at between the parties and one of the terms and conditions is to withdrawal of the cases filed against each other, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.

7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

8. 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. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of summoning order dated 12.04.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.14688 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C., Badaun, on the basis of settlement agreement are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Janardan Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.Trarun Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.14688 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C., Badaun and also to quash the summoning order dated 12.04.2024, on the basis of settlement agreement.

3. Vide order dated 10.06.2024, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order the parties have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and have arrived at a settlement agreement dated 15.12.2024. The mediation report dated 15.12.2024 as well as settlement agreement is part of the record. According to which the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2 have decided that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/ Conciliators on the following terms and conditions:- "7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto: a) That both the parties have agreed to live separately and mutually settled to dissolve their relationship as husband and wife and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun and the same is registered as Marriage Petition No. 653 of 2024 (Smt. Roshani Saxena and Anoop Gaurav). The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is annexed to this settlement agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. b) That in full and final settlement of all the financial claim of the O.P. No. 2- wife that may accrue against the applicant no. 1-husband or his family members, applicant no. 1- husband has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rs. Six Lakh) to the O.P. No. 2- wife towards her permanent alimony including Stridhan and other financial claims. This amount shall be paid in installments. e) That the applicant no. 1-husband had already paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rs. Three Lakh only) through two demand drafts bearing no. 300008 & 896869 dated 26.09.2024 & 08.11.2024 drawn on Indian Bank & Canara Bank Rs. 2 lakhs & Rs. 1 Lakhs both issued in the name of Roshni Saxena (O.P. No. 2) respectively, at the time of filing the petition under Sections 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun and she has acknowledged the receipts of the same. d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount Le. Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) shall be paid by the applicant no. 1- husband to the O.P. No. 2- wife at the time of second motion/ final judgment in Marriage Petition No. 653 of 2024 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Badaun, by way of demand draft. e) That the O.P. No. 2-wife has moved an application in Case No. 481/2023, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Korwali, District Badaun for not pressing the said case, the certified copy of the aforesaid application is annexed to this settlement agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. f) That-it has been agreed between the parties that apart from the above mentioned Case, all civil and criminal cases (if any) filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall also be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. g) That parties agree that they shall not withdraw their consent from petition u/s 13B of H.M. Act. In case, applicant no. 1-husband withdraws his consent, the amount already paid to the O.P. No. 2 shall stands forfeited in her favour and in case O.P. No. 2-wife withdraws her consent from petition u/s 13B of H.M. Act, she would be liable to return the entire amount of alimony received by her alongwith current market rate of interest to the applicant no. 1- husband. h) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. i) That it has been stated by the learned counsel (Mukesh Chandra Pandey, holding brief of Pankaj Satsangi) for the O.P. No. 2 that the O.P. No. 2- Roshani Saxena is suffering from severe liver cirrhosis and therefore, not able to appear before the mediation centre and sign the final settlement here as such she has agreed to the terms and conditions enumerated above and a copy of this settlement is being sent to her on e-mail ([email protected]) and she agrees to sign the settlement agreement, scan it and return it to the mediation centre on the e-mail through which she received this settlement agreement. This Settlement-Agreement has been read over in the presence of the brother (Amit Saxena) of O. P. No.2, who is also signing the settlement-agreement as witness and Counsel (Mukesh Chandra Pandey), who identify the signature of the O. P. No.2 and her brother."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the settlement agreement has arrived at between the parties and one of the terms and conditions is to withdrawal of the cases filed against each other, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.

7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

8. 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. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of summoning order dated 12.04.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.14688 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C., Badaun, on the basis of settlement agreement are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad