SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arvind And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 51

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 26226 of 2017

Applicant :- Arvind And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yadvesh Yadav

Hon’ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Varun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been field with prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.1225 of 2016 (Smt. Gargi Yadav Vs. Arvind and others), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, initiated in pursuance of the impugned summoning order dated 06.12.2016, issued for the offence under Sections 406, SectionIPC, Police Station Singhavali Aheer, District Baghpat.

Today when the case has been taken up, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by another Bench of this Court, by means of which the matter was referred to the mediation centre of this Court.

I have perused the report of mediation centre dated 20.04.2018, which shows the parties have arrived at a settlement. I have also perused the said settlement agreement dated 20.04.2018, which shows that the parties have arrived at a settlement with the following conditions:-

“(a) That the marriage of Sri Arvind (Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Smt. Gargi Yadav (Opposite Party No. 2-Wife) was solemnized on 25.11.2013. After three months of their marriage the relations between husband and wife, became strained and hence, they were living separately. No issues were born out of the aforesaid wedlock.

(b) That Sri Arvind(Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Smt. Gargi Yadav (Opposite Party No. 2-Wife) have decided to take mutual divorce on the condition of a permanent alimony including Stridhan of Rs. 8,00,000/- (rupee Eight Lakhs only) being paid by the husband to the wife towards her maintenance etc. in two equal installments.

(c) That on 17.02.2018 Sri Arvind(Applicant No. 1-Husband) had brought a demand draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Only) bearing D.D. No. 746429 dated 14.02.2018 of SBI in favour of Gargi yadav, which was kept in the mediation file and has been handed over to her today before the mediation center and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

(d) That on 16.03.2018 the Applicant-husband had produced another demand draft of Rs. One Lakh only bearing D.D. No. 746513 dated 12.03.2018 of SBI which was retained in the mediation file and has been handed over to the wife and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

(e) That the parties have filed a mutual divorce petition u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Baghpat on 06.03.2018 and they have brought today certified copy of the same which is annexed to this settlement agreement.

(f) That the remaining amount of alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) will be handed over by the husband to the wife at the time of decree in aforementioned mutual divorce petition in the shape of demand draft.

(g) That the Applicant-husband has handed over the Chevrolet Sail car to Sri Krishna Pal Yadav (Father of O.P. No. 2) and he has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

(h) That all the cases, either civil or criminal, filed by them against each other related to the present dispute will be withdrawn by moving suitable application before the court concerned, within one month of this settlement agreement and they will not initiate any fresh legal proceeding against each other in future.”

The counsel for the opposite party no.2 is also present before the Court and does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

We have also perused the settlement agreement dated 20.04.2018 and find it to be lawful and not against public policy in any manner. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by permitting investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR to continue. Any further investigation would be an abuse of process of Court and wastage of public time and money.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.1225 of 2016 (Smt. Gargi Yadav Vs. Arvind and others), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, initiated in pursuance of the impugned summoning order dated 06.12.2016, issued for the offence under Sections 406, SectionIPC, Police Station Singhavali Aheer, District Baghpat is hereby quashed. Consequences shall follow.

It is provided that each of the terms incorporated in paragraph 6(a) to (h) of the settlement agreement dated 20.04.2018 be and are made Rule of this Court. All courts subordinate to this Court shall faithfully be bound to comply with the terms of the settlement as a Rule of this Court. It is also provided that both the parties to the settlement agreement are equally bound to abide by those terms of the said settlement agreement under our orders.

Order Date :- 27.9.2019/VKG

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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