Om Shukla @ Guddu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9560 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Om Shukla @ Guddu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And ... on 23 April, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23064
 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1022 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Om Shukla @ Guddu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshay Singh,Arshad Siddiqui,Devanshu Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Ashish Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Shri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 549 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Alka Shukla Vs. Om Shukla alias Guddu) whereby the said court has awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- & Rs.1,500/- from the date of application and further Rs. 5,000/- & Rs.3,000/- from the date of order in favour of to opposite party no. 2 and 3 respectively.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 and in pursuance of said order, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 05.03.2025. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 05.03.2025 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:-

"A) That bot the parties namely Sri Om Shukla @ Guddu (husband)-First Party and Smt. Alka Shukla (wife)-Second Party 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 bearing Matrimonial Case No. 277 of 2025 (CNR No. UPBB020006562025) U/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki. 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 parties have agreed that the First Party would pay a total sum of Rs.8,55,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) to the Second Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party against the First Party including the claim for temporary/permanent alimony and maintenance of their daughter namely Ojaswi Shukla.

C) That both the parties have agreed that balance aforementioned amount of Rs.Rs.8,55,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) would be paid to t heSecond Party/wife in two installments through Demand Draft drawn in favour of Alka Tiwari. The first installment of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) will be paid by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife at the time of entering into settlement agreement before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow and the seconde installment of Rs.3,55,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) will be paid by the First Party/husband to the Second Party/wife at the time of second motion of the joint petition filed Under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court, Barabanki.

D) That the First Party has handed over a Demand Draft No.225711 dated 10.02.2025 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) in favour of Alka Tiwari drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, to the Second Party today i.e.05.03.2025 towards payment of aforesaid first installment. The Second Party acknowledges receipt of the said Demand Draft.

E) That the parties have agreed that they shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No.286 of 2024 (Om Shukla @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. and Others) emanating from Criminal Misc. CAse No. 549 of 2018 U/S 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Court of Family Court, Barabanki in terms of this settlement agreement..

F) That the parties have agreed that in addition to the abovementioned case, if any other case is pending between the parties and/or any of their family members, it shall also be disposed off in term of this settlement agreement and both the parties agree to co-operate to end all the litigation between the parties and their family members.

G) 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.

H) 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 form the First Party along with interest @ 9%p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount/installment from the First Party and till the date of its actual payment to the First Party.

I) That the First Party has agreed 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 the 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 the matter involved in CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1022 of 2024 (Om Shukla @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist 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 disposed of.

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

7. 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."

8. 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;"

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 compromise which has been duly verified by the court below 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, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 549 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Alka Shukla Vs. Om Shukla alias Guddu) pending in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki, is hereby disposed of.

12. With the aforesaid direction, the present criminal revision is disposed of.

.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 23.4.2025

Virendra