High Court · 2025

"(i) To issue a order or directions for quashing the charge sheet no.01dated 29.1.2017 submitted in crime nо.0050 of2017 under section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and section 4 D.P. Act P.S Ashiyana Lucknow as contained in a annexure no.1 to the application be quashed and also quashing the summoning order dated 6.8.2018 passed in Crl case no.47256 of 2018 arising out of crime no 0050 of2017 under section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and section 34 D.P. Act P.S Ashiyana Lucknow as contained in annexure no 2 to this application. (ii) To issue a order or directions for staying the further proceedings of the criminal case number 47256 of 2018 under section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S Ashiyana Lucknow pending before the court of the special A.C.J.M.CBI (A.P.) Lucknow."

3. Indisputably, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature as an FIR registered as FIR No.0050 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 342, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by opposite party no.2. The matter has been settled, as appears from Annexure -D to the report of Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court in Form 5. The relevant paras of settlement between the parties reads as under :- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- A. That both the parties namely Sri Amit Trivedi (husband)-First Party and Smt Neelam Mishra (wife)-Second Party have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and live separately in future and for the purpose of dissolution of their marriage, the parties have filed a joint petition for divorce bearing Matrimonial Case No. 358 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 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 parties have agreed that the First Party/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to the Second Party/wife towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party from the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony. C. That the First Party has handed two Demand Drafts to the Second Party today Le.07.02.2025 toward aforesaid payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). The details of the Demand Drafts are mentioned hereunder: (i) D. D. No. 385378 dated 06.02.2025 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch-Ameenabad, Lucknow. (ii) D. D. No.385377 dated 06.02.2025 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch-Ameenabad, Lucknow. D. That the Second Party has agreed that she will not have any objection if the Hon'ble High Court decides the APPLICATION U/s 482 No.7542 of 2024 (Suresh Chandra Trivedi & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) emanating from Criminal Case No.47256 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.0050 of 2017 U/Ss 498A, 323, 342, 506 LP.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act P. S.-Ashiyana, Lucknow pending before the Court of the Special ACIM. CBI (AP) Lucknow in terms of this settlement agreement. E. In addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) are pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) are disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement. F. That it is also agreed between the parties that henceforth no case will be instituted by them against each other or any of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of any dispute arising out of their marriage or any matter incidental thereto. G. 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 the default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court hence for contempt of the Court. The Second Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings, she shall be bound to return to the First Party the entire money received by her from the First Party along with interest 9% p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount/installment(s) and till the date of its actual payment to the First Party. The First Party has agreed that in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the amount received by the Second Party from the First Party shall not be returned by the Second Party and the Second Party shall be at liberty to reopen her case(s) decided by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement by moving an appropriate application before competent Court/Forum.

7. By Signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to the matter involved in APPLICATION U/s 482 No.7542 of 2024 (Suresh Chandra Trivedi & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

4. It is stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, 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 in view of the settlement and the observations made hereinabove. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.0050 of 2017 (Supra), indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed in view of settlement.

6. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

"(i) To issue a order or directions for quashing the charge sheet no.01dated 29.1.2017 submitted in crime nо.0050 of2017 under section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and section 4 D.P. Act P.S Ashiyana Lucknow as contained in a annexure no.1 to the application be quashed and also quashing the summoning order dated 6.8.2018 passed in Crl case no.47256 of 2018 arising out of crime no 0050 of2017 under section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and section 34 D.P. Act P.S Ashiyana Lucknow as contained in annexure no 2 to this application. (ii) To issue a order or directions for staying the further proceedings of the criminal case number 47256 of 2018 under section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S Ashiyana Lucknow pending before the court of the special A.C.J.M.CBI (A.P.) Lucknow."

3. Indisputably, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature as an FIR registered as FIR No.0050 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 342, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by opposite party no.2. The matter has been settled, as appears from Annexure -D to the report of Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court in Form 5. The relevant paras of settlement between the parties reads as under :- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- A. That both the parties namely Sri Amit Trivedi (husband)-First Party and Smt Neelam Mishra (wife)-Second Party have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and live separately in future and for the purpose of dissolution of their marriage, the parties have filed a joint petition for divorce bearing Matrimonial Case No. 358 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 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 parties have agreed that the First Party/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to the Second Party/wife towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party from the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony. C. That the First Party has handed two Demand Drafts to the Second Party today Le.07.02.2025 toward aforesaid payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). The details of the Demand Drafts are mentioned hereunder: (i) D. D. No. 385378 dated 06.02.2025 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch-Ameenabad, Lucknow. (ii) D. D. No.385377 dated 06.02.2025 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch-Ameenabad, Lucknow. D. That the Second Party has agreed that she will not have any objection if the Hon'ble High Court decides the APPLICATION U/s 482 No.7542 of 2024 (Suresh Chandra Trivedi & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) emanating from Criminal Case No.47256 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.0050 of 2017 U/Ss 498A, 323, 342, 506 LP.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act P. S.-Ashiyana, Lucknow pending before the Court of the Special ACIM. CBI (AP) Lucknow in terms of this settlement agreement. E. In addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) are pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) are disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement. F. That it is also agreed between the parties that henceforth no case will be instituted by them against each other or any of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of any dispute arising out of their marriage or any matter incidental thereto. G. 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 the default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court hence for contempt of the Court. The Second Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings, she shall be bound to return to the First Party the entire money received by her from the First Party along with interest 9% p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount/installment(s) and till the date of its actual payment to the First Party. The First Party has agreed that in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the amount received by the Second Party from the First Party shall not be returned by the Second Party and the Second Party shall be at liberty to reopen her case(s) decided by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement by moving an appropriate application before competent Court/Forum.

7. By Signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to the matter involved in APPLICATION U/s 482 No.7542 of 2024 (Suresh Chandra Trivedi & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

4. It is stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, 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 in view of the settlement and the observations made hereinabove. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.0050 of 2017 (Supra), indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed in view of settlement.

6. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench