Jaikrish Parmar Thru. His Father Chaitanya Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another

Pushpila Bisht, Sridhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anilesh Tewari, Aprajita Bansal, Brij Mohan Sahai, Nandini Verma Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Gaurav Verma, Advocate & Sri Akshat Sinha, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh, who is the father of detenue namely Jaikrish Parmar (hereinafter referred to as the "Minor") and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and also Ms. Aprajita Bansal, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Anilesh Tewari, Advocate & Sri Karan Agrawal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2/Arunima Singh (w/o petitioner/Chaitanya Singh) as well as perused the record.

2. The instant petition was instituted by the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh s/o Karan Singh R/o Village and Post- Chaugain, Police Station- Murar, District- Buxar-802115, seeking custody of Minor and thereafter during pendency of the instant petition an application seeking amendment in the prayer clause was preferred and the said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 and in terms of the order dated 19.09.2024 the prayer clause of this petition was amended on 24.09.2024, as per which the prayer was restricted only with regard to visitation rights. The prayer as amended on 24.09.2024 in terms of this Court's order dated 19.09.2024 reads as under:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of habeas corpus to the respondents to set the petitioner/ detenue at liberty forthwith and to grant visitation rights of the petitioner to his father as per the settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 furnished before this Hon'ble Court."

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) The marriage between the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh and the opposite party No. 2/Arunima Singh was solemnized on 18.05.2014 and out of this wedlock the Minor was born on 25.12.2018. (ii) After the aforesaid, on account of matrimonial dispute/discord the opposite party No. 2 refused the company of the petitioner/Chaitanya 2 HABC No. 16 of 2023 Singh. (iii) Thereafter, as the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh forcibly took the custody of the Minor, as alleged, therefore a HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 312 of 2022 was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before this Court. (iv) During pendency of the aforesaid petition, the opposite party No. 2 also lodged an FIR No. 0126/2022, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District- Lucknow. No. FIR Challenging (v) detailed above, the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8151/2022 (Chaitanya Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and the Division Bench of this Court, after considering that compromise/settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022, allowed the said petition and quashed the FIR No. 0126/2022 vide order dated 04.11.2022. The order dated 04.11.2022 reads as under:- 0126/2022, "Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ishan Baghel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.4. Sri Baghel has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.4 along with his Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record. Along with the aforesaid short counter affidavit, copy of settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 has been filed. Petitioner- Chaitanya Singh and opposite party no.4-Ms. Arunima Singh are present in person. As per settlement agreement, custody of the child has been handed over to opposite party no.4. Parties are agreeable to abide by all terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022. Para-13 of the aforesaid settlement agreement is relevant to be reproduced herein below:- "13. That both the parties agree to get the pending cases filed against each other withdrawn including the FIR bearing Case Crime No.126/2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Hazratganj Lucknow and a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition bearing no.312 of 2022 in light of this agreement." Since the dispute has been settled amicably and no charge sheet has been filed, therefore, we find that the impugned FIR does not survive. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The FIR bearing FIR/ Case Crime No.0126 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & 406 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District- Lucknow is hereby quashed in terms of settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022, more particularly in terms of para-13 of the aforesaid agreement. However, if any of the parties of the settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 flouts any terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement agreement, remedy would be available to other party which is permissible under the law. No order as to costs." 3 HABC No. 16 of 2023

4. A perusal of above quoted order dated 04.11.2022 indicates that the custody of the child was handed over to the opposite party No. 2 in terms of the compromise/settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 and the same further indicates that if any of the parties of the compromise/settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 flouts any terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise/settlement agreement, remedy would be available to other party which is permissible under the law.

5. After the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court, which is binding on the Single Judge, the instant petition was instituted before this Court seeking custody of Minor, subsequently modified only to the extent of visitation rights.

6. At the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh stated that an application dated 16.04.2025 seeking amendment in the prayer clause is pending consideration. stage, Sri Sinha, Advocate, who appeared

7. Be that as it may, the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is binding on Single Judge and therefore to the view of this Court, the said order cannot be reviewed in this petition. As such, this Court is of the view that the instant petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.11.2022. It is disposed of accordingly leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. December 8, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Pushpila Bisht, Sridhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anilesh Tewari, Aprajita Bansal, Brij Mohan Sahai, Nandini Verma Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Gaurav Verma, Advocate & Sri Akshat Sinha, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh, who is the father of detenue namely Jaikrish Parmar (hereinafter referred to as the "Minor") and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and also Ms. Aprajita Bansal, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Anilesh Tewari, Advocate & Sri Karan Agrawal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2/Arunima Singh (w/o petitioner/Chaitanya Singh) as well as perused the record.

2. The instant petition was instituted by the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh s/o Karan Singh R/o Village and Post- Chaugain, Police Station- Murar, District- Buxar-802115, seeking custody of Minor and thereafter during pendency of the instant petition an application seeking amendment in the prayer clause was preferred and the said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 and in terms of the order dated 19.09.2024 the prayer clause of this petition was amended on 24.09.2024, as per which the prayer was restricted only with regard to visitation rights. The prayer as amended on 24.09.2024 in terms of this Court's order dated 19.09.2024 reads as under:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of habeas corpus to the respondents to set the petitioner/ detenue at liberty forthwith and to grant visitation rights of the petitioner to his father as per the settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 furnished before this Hon'ble Court."

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) The marriage between the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh and the opposite party No. 2/Arunima Singh was solemnized on 18.05.2014 and out of this wedlock the Minor was born on 25.12.2018. (ii) After the aforesaid, on account of matrimonial dispute/discord the opposite party No. 2 refused the company of the petitioner/Chaitanya 2 HABC No. 16 of 2023 Singh. (iii) Thereafter, as the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh forcibly took the custody of the Minor, as alleged, therefore a HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 312 of 2022 was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before this Court. (iv) During pendency of the aforesaid petition, the opposite party No. 2 also lodged an FIR No. 0126/2022, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District- Lucknow. No. FIR Challenging (v) detailed above, the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8151/2022 (Chaitanya Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and the Division Bench of this Court, after considering that compromise/settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022, allowed the said petition and quashed the FIR No. 0126/2022 vide order dated 04.11.2022. The order dated 04.11.2022 reads as under:- 0126/2022, "Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ishan Baghel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.4. Sri Baghel has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.4 along with his Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record. Along with the aforesaid short counter affidavit, copy of settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 has been filed. Petitioner- Chaitanya Singh and opposite party no.4-Ms. Arunima Singh are present in person. As per settlement agreement, custody of the child has been handed over to opposite party no.4. Parties are agreeable to abide by all terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022. Para-13 of the aforesaid settlement agreement is relevant to be reproduced herein below:- "13. That both the parties agree to get the pending cases filed against each other withdrawn including the FIR bearing Case Crime No.126/2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Hazratganj Lucknow and a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition bearing no.312 of 2022 in light of this agreement." Since the dispute has been settled amicably and no charge sheet has been filed, therefore, we find that the impugned FIR does not survive. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The FIR bearing FIR/ Case Crime No.0126 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & 406 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District- Lucknow is hereby quashed in terms of settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022, more particularly in terms of para-13 of the aforesaid agreement. However, if any of the parties of the settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 flouts any terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement agreement, remedy would be available to other party which is permissible under the law. No order as to costs." 3 HABC No. 16 of 2023

4. A perusal of above quoted order dated 04.11.2022 indicates that the custody of the child was handed over to the opposite party No. 2 in terms of the compromise/settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 and the same further indicates that if any of the parties of the compromise/settlement agreement dated 18.10.2022 flouts any terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise/settlement agreement, remedy would be available to other party which is permissible under the law.

5. After the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court, which is binding on the Single Judge, the instant petition was instituted before this Court seeking custody of Minor, subsequently modified only to the extent of visitation rights.

6. At the petitioner/Chaitanya Singh stated that an application dated 16.04.2025 seeking amendment in the prayer clause is pending consideration. stage, Sri Sinha, Advocate, who appeared

7. Be that as it may, the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is binding on Single Judge and therefore to the view of this Court, the said order cannot be reviewed in this petition. As such, this Court is of the view that the instant petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.11.2022. It is disposed of accordingly leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. December 8, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench