High Court · 2025

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6917 of 2022 Applicant :- Manish Sharma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar Srivastava,Umesh Chandra Srivastava,Upendra Kumar Sagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and as per office report dated 27.09.2024, service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds hear the instant application. Heard. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 13.07.2022 as also the criminal proceeding of Case No. 4285/2022, Case Crime No. 0259/2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur including the charge- sheet. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants including the dispute between the parties and the offence against the applicants, this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement between the parties. In compliance of order of this Court dated 15.11.2022, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court alongwith settlement agreement dated 31.07.2023 has submitted its report, which has been annexed as 'Annexure- E', wherein it has been mentioned that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels. The relevant para of settlement agreement 31.07.2023 is extracted herein-under: "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto: A. That both the parties namely Manish Sharma (husband) and Mansi Sharma (wife) mutually agree to live separately in future and dissolve their marriage. For the purpose of dissolution of their marriage, the parties have filed a petition for divorce bearing 1090 of 2023 U/S 13- B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge Family Court, Sitapur on 25.07.2023. Both the parties herein undertake to appear before the concerned Court on the date(s) fixed and would make their earnest endeavour to obtain a decree of divorce in terms of this settlement at the earliest. B. That the First Party agreed to pay to the Second Party Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lacs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party including the claim for permanent alimony against the First Party. The Second Party agreed to receive the said amount from the First Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims including the claim for permanent alimony. C. That out of aforementioned amount Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lacs), a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) has been paid by the First Party to the Second Party today i.e. 31.07.2023 vide a Demand Draft No. 734211 dated 01.07.2023 issued by Canara Bank, Lucknow Naka Hindola Branch. D. The parties have agreed that the balance amount of 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) would be paid by the First Party to the Second Party on or before the date fixed for second motion of the divorce petition filed U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed before Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur. E. That the Second Party does not have any objection if APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 6917 of 2022 (Manish Sharma & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) is allowed and summoning order dated 13.07.2022, arising out of Case No. 4285/2022, Case Crime No. 0259/2021, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 L.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District-Sitapur is quashed by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this settlement agreement. F. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder: (i) Case No. 943 of 2021 U/S 125 Cr. P. C. pending before Principal Judge. Family Court, Sitapur. (ii) Case U/S 12 D. V. Act, filed in the Court at Sitapur. G. In addition to above mentioned case, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties and their family members, the same shall also be withdrawn by the respective parties in terms of this Settlement Agreement. H. That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any member of their respective families shall institute any case in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings against each other or against any of their relative or family members in respect of present dispute or any matter incidental thereto and if any proceeding has already been initiated, the same would be got disposed of in terms of this settlement Agreement. I. That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court, hence for contempt of the Court." Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No., quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant(s) in terms of settlement agreement. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6917 of 2022 Applicant :- Manish Sharma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar Srivastava,Umesh Chandra Srivastava,Upendra Kumar Sagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and as per office report dated 27.09.2024, service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds hear the instant application. Heard. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 13.07.2022 as also the criminal proceeding of Case No. 4285/2022, Case Crime No. 0259/2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur including the charge- sheet. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants including the dispute between the parties and the offence against the applicants, this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement between the parties. In compliance of order of this Court dated 15.11.2022, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court alongwith settlement agreement dated 31.07.2023 has submitted its report, which has been annexed as 'Annexure- E', wherein it has been mentioned that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels. The relevant para of settlement agreement 31.07.2023 is extracted herein-under: "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto: A. That both the parties namely Manish Sharma (husband) and Mansi Sharma (wife) mutually agree to live separately in future and dissolve their marriage. For the purpose of dissolution of their marriage, the parties have filed a petition for divorce bearing 1090 of 2023 U/S 13- B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge Family Court, Sitapur on 25.07.2023. Both the parties herein undertake to appear before the concerned Court on the date(s) fixed and would make their earnest endeavour to obtain a decree of divorce in terms of this settlement at the earliest. B. That the First Party agreed to pay to the Second Party Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lacs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party including the claim for permanent alimony against the First Party. The Second Party agreed to receive the said amount from the First Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims including the claim for permanent alimony. C. That out of aforementioned amount Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lacs), a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) has been paid by the First Party to the Second Party today i.e. 31.07.2023 vide a Demand Draft No. 734211 dated 01.07.2023 issued by Canara Bank, Lucknow Naka Hindola Branch. D. The parties have agreed that the balance amount of 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) would be paid by the First Party to the Second Party on or before the date fixed for second motion of the divorce petition filed U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed before Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur. E. That the Second Party does not have any objection if APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 6917 of 2022 (Manish Sharma & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) is allowed and summoning order dated 13.07.2022, arising out of Case No. 4285/2022, Case Crime No. 0259/2021, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 L.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District-Sitapur is quashed by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this settlement agreement. F. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder: (i) Case No. 943 of 2021 U/S 125 Cr. P. C. pending before Principal Judge. Family Court, Sitapur. (ii) Case U/S 12 D. V. Act, filed in the Court at Sitapur. G. In addition to above mentioned case, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties and their family members, the same shall also be withdrawn by the respective parties in terms of this Settlement Agreement. H. That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any member of their respective families shall institute any case in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings against each other or against any of their relative or family members in respect of present dispute or any matter incidental thereto and if any proceeding has already been initiated, the same would be got disposed of in terms of this settlement Agreement. I. That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court, hence for contempt of the Court." Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No., quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant(s) in terms of settlement agreement. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench