Preeti v. Rama Kant Shukla) rejecting claim of maintenance to the revisionist U

well as Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal revision hs been filed with a payer to call for the records of the court below and set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2020 (Preeti Vs. Rama Kant Shukla) rejecting claim of maintenance to the revisionist U/S 125 of Cr.P.C. and allow the instant criminal revision.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 30.09.2024. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 30.09.2024 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.

4. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto - A. That both the parties namely Preeti (wife) and Rama Kant Shukla (husband) 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 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, bearing case no. 899 of 2024 with mutual consent. 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 Second Party agreed to pay and the Second Party agreed to receive a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony against the Second Party. C. That both the parties have agreed that the amount Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) would be paid by the Second Party to the First Party/wife in two installments through Demand Draft drawn in favour of Preeti. The first installment of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) will be paid by the Second Party/husband to the First Party wife on the date of entering in settlement agreement before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow The second installment of Rs 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Fifty Thousand only) will be paid by the Second Party husband to the First Party/wife at the time of second motion of the joint petition filed Under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Faizabad. D. That the Second Party has handed over a Demand Draft No.009231 dated 06.09.2024 amounting to Rs 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) drawn on HDFC Bank, Akbarpur to the First Party today i.e. 30.09.2004 towards payment of aforementioned first installment. The Second Party acknowledges receipt of the said Demand Draft. E. That the items given at the time of marriage (stridhan) has been returned to the First Party by the Second Party. F. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the case filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are as under. a. Criminal Misc. Case No.582 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2019 US 147, 323, 504, 506, 498-4. IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act pending before Upper Civil Judge-First (Sr. Div). ACIM Faizabad. b. Criminal Misc. Case No. 142 of 2020 US 125 C. P. C. pealing before Family Court Faizabad. G. That the parties have agreed that they shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble High Court decides the CRIMINAL REVISION No.917 of 2023 (Preeti Vs State of UP & Another) in terms of this settlement agreement. H. In addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the said case(s) is also 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. 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 the contempt of the court for playing fraud with the court. The First Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings, she shall be bound to return the money received by her to the Second Party along with interest 9% p.a, with effect from the date of receipt of the amount and till the date of its actual payment. The Second Party agreed that in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the amount received by the First Party from the Second Party shall not be returned by the First Party and it will be open for the First Party to reopen the case which would have been disposed off 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 matter involved in CRIMINAL REVISION No. 917 OF 2023 (Preeti Vs. State of U.P. & Another) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by t he Parties hereto through the process Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that since both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing, the aforesaid case may be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:- "15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

10. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.

11. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the revisionist, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

12. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through process of mediation before Medication and Conciliation Centrel, High Court, Lucknow as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, order dated

15.07.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2020 (Preeti Vs. Rama Kant Shukla) is hereby quashed.

13. in view of the aforesaid agreement, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

well as Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal revision hs been filed with a payer to call for the records of the court below and set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2020 (Preeti Vs. Rama Kant Shukla) rejecting claim of maintenance to the revisionist U/S 125 of Cr.P.C. and allow the instant criminal revision.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 30.09.2024. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 30.09.2024 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.

4. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto - A. That both the parties namely Preeti (wife) and Rama Kant Shukla (husband) 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 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, bearing case no. 899 of 2024 with mutual consent. 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 Second Party agreed to pay and the Second Party agreed to receive a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony against the Second Party. C. That both the parties have agreed that the amount Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) would be paid by the Second Party to the First Party/wife in two installments through Demand Draft drawn in favour of Preeti. The first installment of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) will be paid by the Second Party/husband to the First Party wife on the date of entering in settlement agreement before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow The second installment of Rs 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Fifty Thousand only) will be paid by the Second Party husband to the First Party/wife at the time of second motion of the joint petition filed Under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Faizabad. D. That the Second Party has handed over a Demand Draft No.009231 dated 06.09.2024 amounting to Rs 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) drawn on HDFC Bank, Akbarpur to the First Party today i.e. 30.09.2004 towards payment of aforementioned first installment. The Second Party acknowledges receipt of the said Demand Draft. E. That the items given at the time of marriage (stridhan) has been returned to the First Party by the Second Party. F. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the case filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are as under. a. Criminal Misc. Case No.582 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2019 US 147, 323, 504, 506, 498-4. IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act pending before Upper Civil Judge-First (Sr. Div). ACIM Faizabad. b. Criminal Misc. Case No. 142 of 2020 US 125 C. P. C. pealing before Family Court Faizabad. G. That the parties have agreed that they shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble High Court decides the CRIMINAL REVISION No.917 of 2023 (Preeti Vs State of UP & Another) in terms of this settlement agreement. H. In addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the said case(s) is also 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. 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 the contempt of the court for playing fraud with the court. The First Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings, she shall be bound to return the money received by her to the Second Party along with interest 9% p.a, with effect from the date of receipt of the amount and till the date of its actual payment. The Second Party agreed that in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the amount received by the First Party from the Second Party shall not be returned by the First Party and it will be open for the First Party to reopen the case which would have been disposed off 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 matter involved in CRIMINAL REVISION No. 917 OF 2023 (Preeti Vs. State of U.P. & Another) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by t he Parties hereto through the process Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that since both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing, the aforesaid case may be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:- "15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

10. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.

11. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the revisionist, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

12. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through process of mediation before Medication and Conciliation Centrel, High Court, Lucknow as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, order dated

15.07.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2020 (Preeti Vs. Rama Kant Shukla) is hereby quashed.

13. in view of the aforesaid agreement, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench