Allahabad High Court
Sani Deval And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:50415
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2026 of 2023
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Shriprakash Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant application has been filed for the following main relief:-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Sessions Judge Shravasti in Criminal Revision No. 30/2022, Sani Deval and others versus Smt. Vimla Devi and another and order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shravasti in Complaint Case No. 9779/2021, Smt. Vimla Devi versus Sani Deval and others, contained as Annexure No.1 and 2 to this application and every proceeding arising out of the same pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Shravasti, in Complaint Case No. 9779/2021, under section 498 A, 323, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shravasti, Smt. Vimla Devi versus Sani Deval and others."
3. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 24.03.2023, has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement between the parties.
4. In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 24.03.2023, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court alongwith settlement agreement dated 24.08.2023 has submitted its report, which has been annexed as 'Annexure- D', wherein it has been mentioned that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.
5. Relevant para, i.e. Para 6 of the settlement reads as under.
"6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
A. That both the parties namely Sani Deval (husband) and Vimla Devi (wife) solemnized their marriage on 28.04.2017 and they had mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and to live separately in future. For the purpose of dissolution of their marriage the parties have filed a petition for divorce bearing R. S. No. 909 of 2023 U/S 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich on 18.08.2023. 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 First Party agreed to pay to the Second Party Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party including the claim for permanent alimony against the First Party. The Second Party agreed to receive the said amount from the First Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims including the claim for permanent alimony.
C. That out of aforesaid amount Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lacs Fifty Thousand), a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) has already been paid by the First Party to the Second Party in cash. The Second Party acknowledges receipt of the payment.
D. That the balance amount Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lac Fifty Thousand) has also been paid by the First Party to the Second Party today i.e. 24.08.2023 vide a Demand Draft No. 160478 dated 04.08.2023 issued by Bank of Baroda branch at Payagpur.
E. That the parties have exchange all their respective items/articles with each other.
F. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the case filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are as under:
(i) Case No. 179 of 2021 U/S 125 Cr. P. C. pending before Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Shravasti.
(ii) Case No. 639 of 2021 U/S 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich.
G. The Second Party has agreed not to have any objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 2026 of 2023 (Sani Deval & Others Vs State Of U.P. & Another) arising out of Complaint Case No. 9779 of 2021 U/S 498A, 323, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act Police Station-Kotwali Bhinga, District-Shravasti.
H. In addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement.
I. That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any member of their respective families shall institute any case in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings against each other or against any of their relative or family members in respect of their present dispute or any matter incidental thereto and if any proceeding has already been initiated, both the parties would get it disposed of in terms of this settlement Agreement.
J. That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing the default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court hence for contempt of the Court. The Second Party agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings, she shall be bound to return the money received by her to the First Party along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount and till the date of its actual payment to the First Party. The First Party 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 the Second Party and it will be open for the Second Party to reopen the case which would stand disposed off in terms of this Settlement Agreement by moving an appropriate application before competent Court/ Forum."
6. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.9779/2021, indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.
7. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
August 26, 2025
Anand/-
