Allahabad High Court
Sriprakash Pathak vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 19 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83819
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17759 of 2024
Applicant :- Sriprakash Pathak
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Digvijay Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Digvijay Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there was matrimonial dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and in another application being Application U/S 482 No.43636 of 2023 wherein present applicant was applicant no.3, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and in the mediation proceedings, both the parties have finally settled the matter.
3. Vide order dated 13.12.2024, this Court has called for a report from the Mediation Centre in respect of mediation proceedings held in Application U/S 482 No.43636 of 2023. In pursuance thereof, report dated 18.12.2024 has been sent wherein it is mentioned that mediation between the parties was successful. Along with the aforesaid report, copy of the settlement agreement entered into on 21.07.2024 between the applicant and O.P. no.2 has been enclosed. The relevant part of the Settlement Agreement is reproduced below :-
"7. In view of the Interim Settlement dated 23.06.2024, 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, Prayagraj on 16.07.2024 and the same is registered as Marriage Petition No.1423 of 2024. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is annexed to this settlement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony and Stridhan by way of Demand Draft drawn in her favour and Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) towards the maintenance of minor daughter (Ridhi) living with her mother.
c) That as per Para 7 (d) of the Interim Settlement dated 23.06.2024, today i.e. 21.07.2024, the husband had handed over a demand draft to the O.P. no.2-wife, bearingD.D. No.824923 dated 18.07.2024 for Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) drawn on State Bank of India in favour of Sweta Tiwari for which she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e.; Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by Sri Prakash Pathak (Applicant No.3-Husband) to Smt. Shweta Tiwari (O.P. no.2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in Marriage Petition No.1423 of 2024 pending in Family Court, Prayagraj by way of demand draft.
e) That it has been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases, if any, 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 within two months, otherwise all pending cases will automatically be dismissed on the basis of this final agreement.
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.
g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse."
4. On perusal of aforesaid report as well as Settlement Agreement dated 21.07.2024, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and decided to live separately. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in the mediation proceedings and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the instant application pending.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise between the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:
i) that 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;
ii) 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;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
iv) 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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in the mediation proceedings and compromise has arrived between the parties, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, order dated 09.01.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.312 of 2018 (Shweta Pathak Vs. Sri Prakash Pathak) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Sahatwar, District-Ballia pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 19.5.2025
Manish Himwan
