Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi v. vikas Rajpoor) under Section

1. This criminal revision has been filed with a payer to set aside the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao in Suit No.82/2022 (Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi Vs. vikas Rajpoor) under Section 125 Cr. P.C. as well as the entire proceedings thereof and allow the instant criminal revision.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 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 24.02.2025. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 24.02.2025 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.

3. 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 Mr. Vikas Rajpoot (husband- First Party) and Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi (wife-Second Party) have mutually agreed to live separately and dissolve their marriage. Both the parties have agreed to file a joint petition for divorce U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Unnao on 20th March, 2025 or before it. B. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the concerned Family Court on the date (s) fixed and to make their earnest efforts to obtain a decree of divorce in terms of this settlement agreement at the earliest. C. That the parties agreed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be paid by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife and the jewellery and household articles of the Second Party/wife shall be returned by the First Party/husband towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Second Party against the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony. D. That out of aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) has already been paid by the first Party/husband to the Second Party /wife vide a Demand Draft No.48,5141 dated 16.12.2024 drawn on Canara Bank and the receipt of the same is acknowledged by the Second Party/wife. E. That the First Party/husband has already returned the aforesaid household articles to the Second Party in presence of witnesses on 30.12.2024. F. That the parties have agreed that teh balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) would be paid by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife on the date of final motion of joint petition to be filed U/S 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Unnao. G. That the parties have agreed that aforesaid jewellery i.e. one golden ring, two small nose rings shall be handed over by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife on the date of final motion of joint petition to be filed U/S 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Unnao. H. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not pursue the cases filed by them against each other and their family members and they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the cases in terms of this settlement agreement. The details of the cases are as under:- (1) Criminal Case No.82 of 2022 U/S 125 Cr. P.C. decided by teh Corut Princiipal Judge, Family Court, Unnao. (2) Complaint case No.1352 of 2023 U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pending in teh Court of Civil Juege (J.D./F.T.C. (Crime Agaisnt Women) Unnao. (3) R. S. No.754 of 2022 U/S 9 of Hindu Marriage Act decided by the Court Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi. I. That the Second Party has agreed that she will not have any objection if the CRIMINAL REVISION No.1087 of 2024 (Vikas Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. & Another) emanating from order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case NO.82 of 2022 U/S 125 Cr.P.C.decided by the Court Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao is decided by the Hon'ble court in terms of this settlement agreement. . J. That the parties have agreed that in addition to the above mentioned cases, if any other case is pending between the parties and/ or against any of their family members regarding the disputes between the parties, it shall also be disposed off in terms of this settlement agreement and both the parties agree to co-operate to end all the litigation between the parties and their family members. K. That it is also agreed between the parties that henceforth no case will be instituted by them against each other or an of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of nay dispute arising out of their marriage or any matter incidental thereto. L. That both the parties agree that they shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. The Second Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings and in disposal of pending cases filed by her against the First Party and his family members, she will return to the First Party the entire amount received by her from the First Party along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount. M. That 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 teh Second Party to the First Party and the Second Party will be at liberty to reopen all her cases 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 matter involved in CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1087 OF 2024 (Vikas Rajpoot 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. 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.

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

6. 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."

7. 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;"

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 Centre, 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 23.07.2024 passed in Suit No.82 of 2022 (Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi Vs. Vikas Rajpoot) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., police station Bangarmau, District Hardoi pending in Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao is hereby quashed.

11. in view of the aforesaid agreement, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. This criminal revision has been filed with a payer to set aside the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao in Suit No.82/2022 (Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi Vs. vikas Rajpoor) under Section 125 Cr. P.C. as well as the entire proceedings thereof and allow the instant criminal revision.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 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 24.02.2025. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 24.02.2025 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.

3. 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 Mr. Vikas Rajpoot (husband- First Party) and Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi (wife-Second Party) have mutually agreed to live separately and dissolve their marriage. Both the parties have agreed to file a joint petition for divorce U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Unnao on 20th March, 2025 or before it. B. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the concerned Family Court on the date (s) fixed and to make their earnest efforts to obtain a decree of divorce in terms of this settlement agreement at the earliest. C. That the parties agreed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be paid by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife and the jewellery and household articles of the Second Party/wife shall be returned by the First Party/husband towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Second Party against the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony. D. That out of aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) has already been paid by the first Party/husband to the Second Party /wife vide a Demand Draft No.48,5141 dated 16.12.2024 drawn on Canara Bank and the receipt of the same is acknowledged by the Second Party/wife. E. That the First Party/husband has already returned the aforesaid household articles to the Second Party in presence of witnesses on 30.12.2024. F. That the parties have agreed that teh balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) would be paid by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife on the date of final motion of joint petition to be filed U/S 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Unnao. G. That the parties have agreed that aforesaid jewellery i.e. one golden ring, two small nose rings shall be handed over by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife on the date of final motion of joint petition to be filed U/S 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Unnao. H. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not pursue the cases filed by them against each other and their family members and they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the cases in terms of this settlement agreement. The details of the cases are as under:- (1) Criminal Case No.82 of 2022 U/S 125 Cr. P.C. decided by teh Corut Princiipal Judge, Family Court, Unnao. (2) Complaint case No.1352 of 2023 U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pending in teh Court of Civil Juege (J.D./F.T.C. (Crime Agaisnt Women) Unnao. (3) R. S. No.754 of 2022 U/S 9 of Hindu Marriage Act decided by the Court Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi. I. That the Second Party has agreed that she will not have any objection if the CRIMINAL REVISION No.1087 of 2024 (Vikas Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. & Another) emanating from order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case NO.82 of 2022 U/S 125 Cr.P.C.decided by the Court Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao is decided by the Hon'ble court in terms of this settlement agreement. . J. That the parties have agreed that in addition to the above mentioned cases, if any other case is pending between the parties and/ or against any of their family members regarding the disputes between the parties, it shall also be disposed off in terms of this settlement agreement and both the parties agree to co-operate to end all the litigation between the parties and their family members. K. That it is also agreed between the parties that henceforth no case will be instituted by them against each other or an of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of nay dispute arising out of their marriage or any matter incidental thereto. L. That both the parties agree that they shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. The Second Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings and in disposal of pending cases filed by her against the First Party and his family members, she will return to the First Party the entire amount received by her from the First Party along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount. M. That 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 teh Second Party to the First Party and the Second Party will be at liberty to reopen all her cases 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 matter involved in CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1087 OF 2024 (Vikas Rajpoot 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. 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.

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

6. 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."

7. 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;"

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 Centre, 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 23.07.2024 passed in Suit No.82 of 2022 (Smt. Shalu alias Shalu Devi Vs. Vikas Rajpoot) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., police station Bangarmau, District Hardoi pending in Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao is hereby quashed.

11. in view of the aforesaid agreement, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench