Allahabad High Court
Smt. Lata Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58132 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29030 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Lata Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Anish,Sajiya Parveen Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Sajiya Parveen, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Ruchi Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.08.2023 and cognizance order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No. 32418 of 2024, State Vs. Raj Kishor and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2023 u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Tundla, District- Firozabad, which is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.
3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy are that applicant no. 3 is husband of opposite party no. 2 and matrimonial discord between them has culminated into present proceedings which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have jointly submitted that this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 considering the fact that the dispute is matrimonial in nature referred this matter to Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. In pursuance of the order of this court, parties have appeared before the Mediation Centre to participate in the mediation proceedings and a settlement agreement dated 19.02.2025 was also entered into between them.
5. It has been informed by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that though the correct name of opposite party no. 2 is ‘Gaurdayawanti’ but her name has been mentioned incorrectly in the present application as ‘Geeta Devi’ which is her nickname. Therefore, mediation centre may be permitted to release the amount of Rs.25,000/- by preparing a cheque in the name of ‘Gaurdayawanti’.
6. The Mediation Centre is directed to prepare the cheque of Rs.25,000/- which was deposited by the applicants at the time of appearance of opposite party no. 2 before the Mediation Centre by issuing a cheque in the name of ‘Gaurdayawanti’.
7. From the perusal of record, it appears that there is a report of mediation centre dated19.02.2025 showing that a settlement agreement has been entered into between the parties on19.02.2025. Paragraph no. 7 of the settlement agreement dated19.02.2025 is being quoted as under:
“7. In view of the Interim Settlement dated 08.01.2025, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That it is stated by O.P. No. 2-wife that her correct name is “Gaurdayawanti instead of ‘Geeta Devi’ as mentioned in the array of the parties of the present case. Geeta Devi name is matrimonial name of O.P. No. 2.
b) That in view of paragraph 7 (b) of the Interim Settlement dated 08.01.2025, the parties have mutually decided to live separately and dissolve their marriage and pursuant to the same they have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Mariage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad which is registered as H.M.P. No. 123 of 2025.
c) That it has been agreed between the parties that in full and final settlement of all financial claims of the wife that may accrue against the husband- Raj Kishor (Applicant No.3) or his family members, the wife-Geeta Devi (O. P. No.2-wife) shall be paid a permanent alimony including Stridhan to the tune of Rs.7,75,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only) by the husband-Raj Kishor. After receiving this amount the wife shall not stake any claim of any nature whatsoever in the property of the husband or her in-laws and she also agrees that she shall not claim any further financial assistance from the husband. The aforesaid amount shall be paid through the demand drafts drawn in her favor.
d) That today ie. 19.02.2025 the applicant no. 3-hushand has handed over a demand draft bearing no. 718439 dated 15.01.2025 for Rs.3,75,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) drawn on State Bank of India issued in the name of Gaurdayanwanti and the O.P. No. 2-wife has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
e) That it has further been agreed between the parties that the remaining of aforesaid agreed permanent alimony i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh Only) shall be paid by Raj Kishor (Applicant No. 3-husband) to Geeta Devi (O. P. No.2-wife) by way of demand draft of a nationalized bank drawn in favour of wife at the time of second motion/final judgment in H.M.P. No. 123 of 2025 before the Family Court, Firozabad.
f) That father of the O.P. No. 2-wife, namely Lakhan Singh is present and signing the settlement as witness and also undertaking to withdraw the Case No. 22320 of 2023 (Lakhan Singh Vs. Jai Kishor) filed U/S 138 N.I. Act against the applicant no. 2-Jai Kishor (father of applicant no. 3-husband).
g) That the parties further agree that all the litigation (if any) initiated by each other against them or their family members shall be withdrawn, set aside or got quashed in terms of this settlement and they agree not to litigate with regard to the present matrimonial dispute in future in any manner whatsoever.”
8. From the perusal of settlement agreement dated19.02.2025, it is clear that in paragraph no. 7 (a), it has been mentioned that actually the correct name of opposite party no. 2 in the record is “Gaurdayawanti”. Therefore, part of permanent alimony of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid to the opposite party no. 2 through draft prepared in her correct name ‘Gaurdayawanti’ and the remaining part shall be paid at the time of second motion/judgement by the trial court u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
9. As the parties have settled their dispute and a settlement agreement was also entered into between the parties on19.02.2025 before the Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad and as per this agreement, it has been decided to withdraw/terminate all the criminal proceedings including the impugned proceeding, therefore, in such circumstances, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.
10. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), J.T. 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab), (2014) 9 SCC 653 (Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand) and also (2014) 6 SCC 466 (Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab), and in view of the settlement agreement dated19.02.2025, the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
11. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025
KS