Allahabad High Court
Usha Pandey And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25921
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27860 of 2024
Applicant :- Usha Pandey And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Pandey,Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Priya Singh,Arun Kumar Misra,G.A.,Vivek Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the Record.
2. The present application has been filed with prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 03.11.2007 as well as summoning order dated 15.01.2008 and proceeding of Case No.3887/2019 (State Vs. Neeraj and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.906/2007, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC, Mahila, District-Mau.
3. In view of the settlement agreement between the parties before the Mediation Centre, it appears that some transfer application was filed being Transfer Application No.11/2021 wherein the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Allahabad. The parties appeared before the Mediation Centre on 01.11.2022 and have arrived at settlement agreement wherein the terms and conditions are as follows:-
"(a) That Interim Settlement dated 30.08.2022 is part and parcel of this Settlement Agreement.
(b) That as per Interim Settlement, Smt. Sadhana Pandey, wife (Applicant) and Shri Neeraj Kumar Pandey, husband (O.P. No. 2) have decided to take mutual divorce on the condition that the husband will pay a permanent (one time) alimony including Stridhan Rs.1.50/- Lakhs (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the wife.
(c) That during the Interim Settlement, the husband had produced a demand draft of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) bearing No. 974740 dated 25.08.2022 issued by Overseas Bank drawn in favour of wife kept in Mediation file has been been handed over to her today and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
(d) That as agreed parties have filed a mutual divorce petition No. 2153/2022 under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, before the competent Court, Principal Judge of Family Court, Allahabad and produced the certified copy of the same which is annexed to this Settlement Agreement for kind perusal of the Court.
(e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount Rs.75000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only, (2 Installment) shall be paid by the husband to the wife by way of the demand draft drawn in her favour at the time of final judgment of mutual divorce petition in the family court.
(f) That hereafter parties have no further claim against each other of any nature with regard to the present case and will not litigate in future against each other with regard to the present case.
(g) That it has been agreed between the parties that the all Criminal and Civil cases filed by them or their family members against each other shall be set aside/withdrawn/quashed by them by taking appropriate steps before the Court/Authorities concerned within one month from this Settlement Agreement.
(h) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall comply with the terms and conditions of this settlement and also not litigate in future in connection with this case."
4. In view of the aforesaid settlement agreement, Smt. Sadhana Pandey, wife, opposite party no.2, had agreed to settle the dispute accepting (one time) permanent alimony including Stridhan Rs.1.50/- Lakhs (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only).
5. Demand draft of Rs.75,000/-, bearing No.974740 dated 25.08.2022 issued by Overseas Bank drawn in favour of the wife was handed over to the wife before the Mediation Centre. Pursuant to the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid settlement agreement, mutual divorce petition was also filed. Certified copy of which was placed before the Mediation Centre. It was agreed between the parties that remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid by way of demand draft in favour of the wife at the time of final judgement of the mutual divorce petition in the Family Court. The parties also agreed to withdraw all the cases filed against each other and would have no further claim against each other of any nature.
6. Despite the fulfillment of conditions for filing the mutual divorce petition, it appears that in the present case the applicants were being harassed and proceedings were being continued against them and there was also a fear of their arrest at the time of appearing for payment of remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- before the Family Court in the mutual divorce petition as filed. Therefore, applicants had approached this Court on 17.09.2024 and the following order was passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that earlier vide order date 20.04.2022, passed in Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 11 of 2021, matter was referred for mediation. During mediation proceedings, both the parties have settled the dispute and mediation has been successful.
3. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.
4. Put up this case on 18.10.2024, as fresh.
5. It is directed that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, namely, Usha Pandey, Narendra Nath Pandey, Neeraj Pandey, Pankaj Pandey and Shilipi Pandey in Case No. 3887 of 2019 (State vs. Neeraj and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 906 of 2007, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Sarai Lakhansi, District - Mau, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Mahila, District - Mau."
7. On 05.02.2025, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicants, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 along with Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State, were present before this Court, and it was agreed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra that he is ready to accept the draft here, before this Court which was to be paid before the Family Court in the mutual divorce petition, as per settlement agreement between the parties, accordingly, on 05.02.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the settlement agreement dated 01.11.2022 remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- (second installment) was to be paid by the husband to the wife by way of demand draft drawn in her favour at the time of final judgement of mutual divorce petition in the family Court and it was also agreed that all the civil and criminal cases filed by the parties against each other shall be withdrawn by them. He further submits that applicants could not appear in few dates before the Court concerned in the mutual divorce petition filed by the parties and they are ready and willing to bring the draft of Rs.75,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 before this Court on the next date i.e. 24.02.2025 to show their bona fide.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 agrees to the aforesaid request as made by learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to come up with a draft of Rs.75,000/-, in the name of opposite party no.2, on the next date fixed i.e. 24.02.2025.
Put up as fresh on 24.02.2025.
Till 24.02.2025, interim order granted earlier is extended."
8. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants has complied with the earlier order dated 05.02.2025 and has come up with a demand draft of Rs.75,000/- bearing no.031105 dated 17.02.2025 issued by Indian Overseas Bank drawn in favour of wife Smt. Sadhana Mishra. The payment before this Court amounts to fulfillment of one of the conditions mentioned in the settlement agreement dated 30.08.2022 as was agreed by counsel for the parties.
9. Today, subsequently engaged counsel Mr. Anand Priya Singh, appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, raised an objection that the amount should have been paid before the Family Court in the mutual divorce petition as mentioned in the settlement agreement. He has also filed a short counter affidavit not mentioning about any withdrawal application moved by opposite party no.2 for withdrawing any other case including the present one.
10. Such an objection of not accepting the amount of Rs.75,000/- before this Court cannot be entertained at this stage as it would hamper the proper functioning of the Court wherein once the learned counsel for the parties have already agreed that the amount which is to be paid before the Family Court may be paid to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 herein, thus, raising such an objection for no reason is unjustified.
11. Subsequently engaged counsel states that Mr. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants is also one of the accused in the matter.
12. This Court finds that the accused is a practising lawyer in this Court, therefore, lingering the matter would be harassing the lawyer, who himself stands by the litigants to settle such disputes, which are matrimonial in nature and pendency of such disputes would again amount to injustice in the present case as well as other pending cases wherein the Court is sitting in such jurisdiction finds huge pendency.
13. It is for the Court to decide whether the Vakalatnama of subsequently engaged counsel can be entertained at this stage or not, as has been dealt in case of ShivKumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another passed by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2023 in Application u/s 482 No.42663 of 2022.
14. As the condition no.(e) is fulfilled, the draft to be paid before the Family Court, has now been placed before this Court for payment of opposite party no.2, therefore, mutual divorce petition may also be decided accordingly in absence of the applicants treating the consent given before the Court, as consent before family court.
15. The parties may move withdrawal applications in case required in the cases lodged against each other and the same may be decided keeping in mind the present order, even if the other party is absent before court concerned.
16. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the settlement agreement between the parties permanent alimony including Stridhan have been paid to the opposite party no.2 and the conditions mentioned therein have been fulfilled, therefore, all disputes between them have come to an end. Hence, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
17. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also reiterates the submissions made on behalf of the accused-applicants and has explicitly urged before the Court that the opposite party no.2 has no objection if the present application in question is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
18. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
19. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
21. Accordingly, charge sheet dated 03.11.2007 as well as summoning order dated 15.01.2008 and proceeding of Case No.3887/2019 (State Vs. Neeraj and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.906/2007, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC, Mahila, District-Mau, in view of the settlement agreement between the parties, are hereby quashed.
22. Office is directed to place the draft deposited before this Court of Rs. 75,000/- bearing no.031105 dated 17.02.2025 issued by Indian Overseas Bank drawn in favour of wife Smt. Sadhana Mishra, before the Registrar General of this Court, after retaining the photo-copy of the same, which shall be handed over to the opposite party no.2 Smt. Sadhana Mishra, in case an application is moved before the Registrar General of this Court, after verifying her identity.
23. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025
Rahul.
