SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arif vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 27 September, 2023

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC:188354-DB

Court No. – 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 17332 of 2022

Petitioner :- Arif

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Bhan Singh,Avanish Pratap Singh,Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Niyaj Ahamad

Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon’ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Niyaj Ahamad, learned counsel for the informant and Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 17.08.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 118 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 417, 376, 354 IPC 3/4 of D.P. Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur.

3. Vide order dated 18.11.2022 the matter was referred to the mediation centre.

4. Perused the office report dated 26.09.2023 and the settlement agreement dated 15.02.2023 which indicates that matter has been peacefully settled between the parties and they have settled their differences on the terms mentioned in paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement dated 11.04.2023. The paragraph 7 is quoted as under:-

“In view of the Interim Settlement dated 25.01.2023, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

a) That the parties have stated that a divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed before the Family Court, Saharanpur, which is registered as Case No. 166/2023. The certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition is being 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 a permanent alimony including Stridhan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to the wife through demand draft drawn in her favour.

C) That out of the aforesaid the wife by the husband (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) has already been paid to the wife by the husband and in this regard they have produced a notarized affidavit dated 16.01.2023, which is already annexed to the interim settlement dated 25.01.2023 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

d) That on 25.01.2023, Arif (Petitioner-husband) has produced a demand draft bearing no. 273890 dated 20.01.2023 drawn on Union Bank of India for Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) in favour of Priyanka Rani (wife), which was being kept in the file concerned and the same has been handed over to the wife today i.e. 15.02.2023 and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the 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 further agreed that they shall not file any fresh case/ complaint against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute in any manner whatsoever.

g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement-agreement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.”

5. It is submitted that as between the parties compromise had already taken place therefore, the impugned First Information Report dated 17.08.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 118 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 417, 376, 354 IPC 3/4 of D.P. Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur is liable to be quashed.

6. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), J.T. 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab), (2014) 9 SCC 653 (Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand) and also (2014) 6 SCC 466 (Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab), and in view of the settlement agreement dated 15.02.2023, the First Information Report dated 17.08.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 118 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 417, 376, 354 IPC 3/4 of D.P. Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur is hereby quashed.

7. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 27.9.2023

Ujjawal

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation