Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

possibility of amicable settlement of dispute between the parties. It also appears that in compliance of order of this Court dated 31.01.2025, a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT has been entered into between the parties on 14.02.2025 thereby indicating that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily. The relevant contents of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT are extracted hereunder:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- A. That both the parties namely Rishabh Garg (First Party/husband) and Ridhima Gupta (Second Party/wife) have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and to live separately in future and for the purpose of dissolution of their marriage the parties have filed a case for divorce with mutual consent bearing Matrimonial Case No.492 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Lucknow on 13.02.2025. 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/ husband has agreed to pay to the Second Party and the Second Party has agreed to receive from the First Party a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party against First Party including the claim for permanent alimony. C. That, towards aforesaid one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party against First Party/ husband including the claim for permanent alimony, the First Party/ husband shall deposit the entire amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) before the second/final motion in the Family Court Lucknow from where the Second Party would be entitled to withdraw the entire amount only after the motion of divorce is allowed by the Family Court and a decreed to that effect is drawn by the Family Court. D. That the parties have exchanged the gold jewellery items given at the time of their marriage in presence of the witnesses at the time of filing Matrimonial Case No.492 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Lucknow to their full satisfaction, as per the schedule annexed with the aforesaid petition. The parties 3 A482 No. 7447 of 2024 acknowledge receipt of the gold jewellery items and they will have further claims in this regard. E. That the parties have agreed that the silver articles and other items of the Second Party would be returned to her before second/final motion of the Matrimonial Case No.492 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Lucknow as mentioned in the aforesaid petition. F. That the Second Party has agreed that she shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the APPLICATION U/s 482 No.7447 of 2024 (Rishabh Garg & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) emanating from Complaint Case No.28721 of 2024 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S.-Sushant Golf City, Lucknow in terms of this settlement agreement. G. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/ not press/not to pursue the cases filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder: (i) Complaint Case No.28721 of 2024 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S-Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. (ii) Case No.3//2024 (CNR No.UPLKO40063332024 U/S 12 of D. V. Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. (iii) Case No.91 of 2024 U/S 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before Family Court, Lucknow. (iv) Case No.212 of 2025 U/S 13 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before Family Court, Lucknow. (v) R. S. No. CS 2999 of 2024 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Div), Faridabad. H. In addition to above mentioned case, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement. I. 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. 4 A482 No. 7447 of 2024 J. 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/husband the entire gold jewellery received by her from the First Party and the First Party shall be at liberty to reopen his case(s) decided by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement by moving an appropriate application before competent Court/ Forum. K. That the First Party has agreed that in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the entire gold jewellery 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." 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 5 A482 No. 7447 of 2024 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. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 28721/2024, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. September 1, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

possibility of amicable settlement of dispute between the parties. It also appears that in compliance of order of this Court dated 31.01.2025, a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT has been entered into between the parties on 14.02.2025 thereby indicating that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily. The relevant contents of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT are extracted hereunder:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- A. That both the parties namely Rishabh Garg (First Party/husband) and Ridhima Gupta (Second Party/wife) have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and to live separately in future and for the purpose of dissolution of their marriage the parties have filed a case for divorce with mutual consent bearing Matrimonial Case No.492 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Lucknow on 13.02.2025. 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/ husband has agreed to pay to the Second Party and the Second Party has agreed to receive from the First Party a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party against First Party including the claim for permanent alimony. C. That, towards aforesaid one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party against First Party/ husband including the claim for permanent alimony, the First Party/ husband shall deposit the entire amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) before the second/final motion in the Family Court Lucknow from where the Second Party would be entitled to withdraw the entire amount only after the motion of divorce is allowed by the Family Court and a decreed to that effect is drawn by the Family Court. D. That the parties have exchanged the gold jewellery items given at the time of their marriage in presence of the witnesses at the time of filing Matrimonial Case No.492 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Lucknow to their full satisfaction, as per the schedule annexed with the aforesaid petition. The parties 3 A482 No. 7447 of 2024 acknowledge receipt of the gold jewellery items and they will have further claims in this regard. E. That the parties have agreed that the silver articles and other items of the Second Party would be returned to her before second/final motion of the Matrimonial Case No.492 of 2025 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Lucknow as mentioned in the aforesaid petition. F. That the Second Party has agreed that she shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the APPLICATION U/s 482 No.7447 of 2024 (Rishabh Garg & Others Vs State of U.P. & Another) emanating from Complaint Case No.28721 of 2024 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S.-Sushant Golf City, Lucknow in terms of this settlement agreement. G. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/ not press/not to pursue the cases filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder: (i) Complaint Case No.28721 of 2024 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S-Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. (ii) Case No.3//2024 (CNR No.UPLKO40063332024 U/S 12 of D. V. Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. (iii) Case No.91 of 2024 U/S 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before Family Court, Lucknow. (iv) Case No.212 of 2025 U/S 13 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before Family Court, Lucknow. (v) R. S. No. CS 2999 of 2024 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Div), Faridabad. H. In addition to above mentioned case, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement. I. 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. 4 A482 No. 7447 of 2024 J. 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/husband the entire gold jewellery received by her from the First Party and the First Party shall be at liberty to reopen his case(s) decided by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement by moving an appropriate application before competent Court/ Forum. K. That the First Party has agreed that in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the entire gold jewellery 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." 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 5 A482 No. 7447 of 2024 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. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 28721/2024, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. September 1, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench