Allahabad High Court
Siddharth Percy Ariel And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10740
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16326 of 2024
Applicant :- Siddharth Percy Ariel And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Kumar Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Som Veer
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Hitesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Somveer, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.02.2023, cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Crime Against Women, Meerut passed in Criminal Case No. 12337/2023 (State Vs. Siddharth Percy Ariel), arising out of Case Crime No.104/2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.2, Meerut, on the basis of settlement agreement.
3. Vide order dated 23.05.2024, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order the parties have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and have arrived at a settlement agreement dated 27.11.2024. The mediation report dated 27.11.2024 as well as settlement agreement is part of the record. According to which the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2 have decided that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at an Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/ Conciliators on the following terms and conditions:-
"7. In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 23.10.2024, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That both the parties have agreed to live separately and dissolve their marriage and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut and the same is registered as Divorce Petition No. 2970 of 2024. The parties shall produce certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition before the Hon'ble High Court at the time of hearing.
b) That it has been agreed between the parties that Siddharth Percy Ariel (Applicant No. 1-Husband) shall pay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh only) to Smt. Rinki Gupta (O.P. No. 2-Wife) towards permanent alimony including Stridhan and all other financial claims that may accrue against the applicant no. 1-husband and his family members. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by way of demand drafts.
c) That on 23.10.2024, the applicant no. 1-husband has produced a demand draft bearing no. 514314 dated 24.09.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of Namita Ariel (wife) which is kept on record and the same has been handed. over to the wife today i.e. 27.11.2024 and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
d)That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount ie Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by Siddharth Percy Ariel (Applicant No. 1-Husband) to Smt. Namita Ariel (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment/second motion in Divorce Petition No. 2970 of 2024 pending in Family Court, Meerut by way of demand draft.
e) That it has been agreed between the parties that both the children shall remain with their mother and the applicant no. 1-husband shall have visitation right to meet with his children time to time.
f) 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.
g) 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.
h) 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."
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the settlement agreement has arrived at between the parties and one of the terms and conditions is to withdrawal of the cases filed against each other, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(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,
8. 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge-sheet dated 04.02.2023, cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Crime Against Women, Meerut passed in Criminal Case No. 12337/2023 (State Vs. Siddharth Percy Ariel), arising out of Case Crime No.104/2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.2, Meerut, on the basis of settlement agreement are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2025/Abhishek Singh
