Allahabad High Court
Mayank Chak And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57678
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13636 of 2024
Applicant :- Mayank Chak And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sayujya Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sayujya Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, SriVikram Singh, 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 entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 106 of 2022, u/s 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mathura, District- Mathura, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), District- Mathura, as well as charge-sheet no. 01 of 2023 dated 27.01.2023 and summoning/cognizance order dated 10.07.2023.
3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that applicant no. 1 is husband of opposite party no.2 and matrimonial discord between them has culminated into present proceedings.
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 27.04.2024 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 have settled their dispute and a settlement agreement dated 07.09.2024 was also entered into between the parties.
5. From the perusal of record, it appears that there is a report of mediation centre dated07.09.2024 showing that a settlement agreement has been entered into between the parties on07.09.2024. Paragraph no. 8 of the settlement agreement dated07.09.2024 is being quoted as under:
"8. In view of the Interim Settlement dated 24.08.2024, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That in view of paragraph 8 (a) of the Interim Settlement dated 24.08.2024, 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 Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 29.08.2024, which is registered as Case No. 2311 of 2024. Parties agree that they shall not reside from the settlement/ divorce petition in any manner whatsoever and take it to its logical conclusion without causing any unnecessary impediment. Due to unforeseen circumstances, both the parties could not produce the certified copy of the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act as was agreed in the interim settlement dated 24.08.2024. Both the parties have produced before the Centre a photocopy of the aforesaid petition u/s 13-B of the H. M. Act. The parties have signed the photocopy of the 13-B petition at this Mediation Centre and the same is being annexed to this settlement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
b) That both the parties jointly agree and undertake to file the certified copy of aforesaid petition u/s 13-B as well as order-sheet of the petition registered as Case No. 2311 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Court in Application U/S 482 No. 13636 of 2024 (Mayank Chak And 2 Others vs. State of U. P. and Another)
c) That it has been agreed between the parties that in full and final settlement of all financial claims of O.P. No. 2-wife that may accrue against the applicant no.1-husband or his family members, the wife- Smt. Sagarika Singh shall be paid a permanent alimony including Stridhan to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh Only) by the applicant no.1-husband. After receiving this amount she 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 applicant no.1-husband. The aforesaid amount shall be paid in installments through the demand drafts drawn in her favor.
d) That at the time of interim settlement dated 24.08.2024, the husband had produced a demand draft bearing no. 163557 dated 22.08.2024 drawn on Central Bank of India for Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) issued in favour of wife-Sagarika, which was kept on record and the same is being handed over to the O. P. No.2-wife (Smt. Sagarika Singh) today i.e. 07.09.2024 and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
e) That it has further been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount of aforesaid agreed permanent alimony i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid by Mayank Chak (Applicant No.1-husband) to Smt. Sagarika Singh (O. P. No.2-wife) by way of demand draft of a nationalized bank drawn in favour of O. P. No.2-wife at the time of second motion/final judgment in the petition under Section 13-B of the H.M. Act to be filed before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.
f) That the parties agreed 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.
g) That this settlement had been read over and explained to the parties in Hindi in presence of their respective counsels, thereafter, they have signed the settlement."
6. Considering the fact that parties have settled their dispute and a settlement agreement was also entered into between the parties on 07.09.2024 before the Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, therefore, in such circumstances, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.
7. 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 dated07.09.2024, the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
8. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 16.4.2025
KS
