Vipin Chandra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 8310 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vipin Chandra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146252
 
Court No. - 75
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26142 of 2019
 
Applicant :- Vipin Chandra And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Sengar,Raj Karan Yadav,Vijay Singh Sengar,Yadvendra Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhijeet Verma,Anadi Srivastava,G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey,Yadvendra Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Somya Dwadash Shreni, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Deepankar Shukla, counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the C.J.M., Auraiya as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3474 of 2018 (Shweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra & Ors.) under Sections- 498-A 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali , District- Auraiya.

3. This Court on 05.07.2019 proceeded to pass the following orders:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the C.J.M., Auraiya as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3474 of 2018 (Shweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra & Ors.) under Sections- 498-A 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali , District- Auraiya.

Learned counsel for the applications submits that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-applicant no. 1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no. 2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

So far as the husband-applicant no. 1, namely, Vipin Chandra is concerned following orders is being passed:-

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned.

So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the following order is being passed:-

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid case."

4. A supplementary affidavit dated 01.04.2025 is available on record, according to which, pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 513 of 2024, the matter was referred for mediation and there is a mediation report dated 09.05.2024 which reads as under:

"7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

(a) That the parties have already settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and the same is registered as Case No. 1494 of 2024. The parties stated that all the terms and conditions mentioned therein have been fulfilled. They further reiterated and reaffirm the terms and conditions of the aforesaid divorce petition and the same shall be a part of the settlement also. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is annexed to this settlement-agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

(b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the revisionist-husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony, Stridhan and maintenance by way of demand draft.

(c) That today i.c. 09.05.2024, the revisionist-husband has handed over a demand draft bearing no. 830251 dated 08.05.2024 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of Shweta Nishad (Wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

(d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by Vipin Chandra (Revisionist-Husband) to Smt. Sweta Nishad (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in aforesaid divorce petition pending in Family Court, Lucknow by way of demand draft.

(e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.

(f) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also."

5. A copy of the same is annexed at annexure-1 page 6 of the supplementary affidavit. Reliance has been made in para-2 and it is also contended that a demand draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- has already been given by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2, wife and proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act had been preferred before the Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on 06.05.2024 and compromise application has also been filed on 16.12.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the settlement so entered into between the parties on 09.05.2024 in particular para-7(e) now all the civil and criminal cases have to be withdrawn and in line to the same, the present case is being prayed for withdrawn.

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

7. Looking into the overall fact situation, the parties have entered into settlement on 09.05.2024, para-7(e) as quoted hereinabove speaks about withdrawal all the civil and criminal cases. Parties have made a joint statement before this Court that the proceedings be quashed.

8. Applying the principle of law in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012 (10) SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

10. The proceedings of the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the C.J.M., Auraiya as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3474 of 2018 (Shweta Nishad Vs. Vipin Chandra & Ors.) under Sections- 498-A 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali , District- Auraiya, is quashed insofar as it relates to the applicant nos. 2 and 3.

Order Date :- 23.8.2025/A. Prajapati