Allahabad High Court
Smt. Phool Jahan And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46542 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10719 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Phool Jahan And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Wasim Ahmad,Shivani Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint No. 692 of 2018 "Abul Kalam alias Abdul Kalam Versus Phool Jahan and others" Under Section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Biswan, District - Sitapur pending in the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate Biswan, Sitapur and impugned Summoning order dated 31-01-2020 as well as Bailable Warrant dated 20-10-2023, in the interest of law and justice."
3. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024, has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement between the parties.
4. In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 25.10.2024, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court alongwith settlement agreement dated 21.01.2025 has submitted its report, which has been annexed as 'Annexure- D', wherein it has been mentioned that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. Para 7 of the agreement reads as under.
"The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
A) That the First Party has agreed to pay to the Second Party and the Second Party has agreed to receive from the First Party a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party including the claim for permanent alimony against the First Party.
B) That entire amount of Rs. 7,50,000/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) is being paid vide Demand Draft No. 000668 dated 08.01.2025 issued by Axis Bank Ltd., Branch-Sitapur (UP) to the Second Party by the First Party.
C) Daughter aged about 10 years namely Ayasha kalam and son aged about 9 years namely Bilal Kalam, both minors are living with mother and shall remain with mother until they become major. Both the daughter and son will be free to live as per their choice after becoming major by age.
D) While living with mother, the father namely Abdul Kalam shall not claim and will not file any litigation for custody of above said minor son and daughter in any manner.
E) Fool Jahan(mother) will not claim any maintenance from Abdul Kalam (father) for upbringing/livelihood for above mentioned minor son and daughter while they living with mother. The mother, namely Fool Jahan shall incur all expenditure at her own for upbringing of above mentioned minor son and daughter.
F) That both the parties have agreed to withdraw/not press all the cases filed against each other, the details of which are as under:
I. Case No.166/2022, Crl. Case No.520/2019 U/S 498A, 323 I.P.C., 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Biswan, District- Sitapur before ACJ (JD)-VIII/JM, Sitapur.
II. Case No. 7989/2018 U/S 498A, IPC, before ACJ(SD)-II, Sitapur.
III. Criminal Case No. 198/2015 U/S 498A, 376, 511, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S.- Biswan, District- Sitapur.
IV. Misc. Case No. 54/2016 before ACJM-I, Sitapur.
V. Case No. 3565/2016 DV Act, Phool Jahan Vs. Abul Kalam before ACJ(JD)-VII, Sitapur.
VI. Case No. 393/2016 U/S 125 CrPC, before Nyayadhikari, Gram Nayalaya, Leharpur, Sitapur.
VII. Misc. Appl. No. 66/2024 U/S 125(3) CrPC before Nyayadhikari, Gram Nayalaya, Leharpur, Sitapur.
VIII. Criminal case No. 116/2018 U/S 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S.- Biswan, District- Sitapur.
IX. Case No. 1952/2019 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur.
X. APPLICATION U/S 482 Cr. P. C. No. 2038/2023 Sagir and Ors, Vs State of U.P. pending in the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow relating to NCR 153/2017 U/S 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Talgaon, Sitapur, XI. APPLICATION U/S 482 Cr. P. C. No. 10719/2023 Fool Jahan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. pending in Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow relating to CC No. 692/2018 U/S 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S.- Biswan, Sitapur.
XII. Case No. 37/2019, Abul Kalam Vs. Fool Jahan U/S 25 Guardians and Wards Act for custody of children before Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur.
XIII. NCR No. 156/2015 U/S 323, 506 IPC P.S.- Talgaon, Sitapur G) In addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement.
H) That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any member of their respective families shall institute any malicious prosecution, in the form of any criminal or civil proceedings against each other, or any of their relative or family members, in future in respect to the present dispute or any matter incidental thereto and if any proceeding has already been initiated the same would stand disposed off in terms of this Settlement Agreement.
I) That both the parties understand, agree and further bind themselves that if either of the parties rescinds or does not follow the conditions stipulated herein above, such act shall entail appropriate legal action."
5. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint No.692 of 2018, indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.
6. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Anand/-