Allahabad High Court
Ritu Verma And Anr. vs The State Of U.P And Ors. on 8 January, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1989 of 2014 Applicant :- Ritu Verma And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Arti Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Nadeem Murtaza,P.K.Mishra,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
(C.M.Application No.134862 of 2019)
1. The application seeks impleadment of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 as additional respondents in the memo of the party.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sffucient to allow the leanred counsel forthe applicant to implead respondent Nos.4 to 6 as party respondents.
4. Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
5. The application is allowed.
Order on petition
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet bearing No.125 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.617 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 506, 406 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as well as entire proceedings pending in the Court of C.J.M., Lucknow in Crl. Case No.617 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 506, 406 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2019 on consent of the parties, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of settling the matter between them outside the Court considering the fact that the case is regarding the matrimonial discord between the parties.
3. Report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre has been placed on record. From perusal of the report, it is evidence that the parties have settled their dispute amicable and they have entered into settlement agreement which is duly signed by the parties as well as their lawyers and mediators.
4. Terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties are as under:-
"A. That marriage had been solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals between brother of First party namely Rajat Saxena and Second party, it was decided between the parties that this marriage shall be dissolved on the basis of final decree passed in a Civil Suit No. 485/17 U/S 13A, Sec 25 and Sec 27 (Neha Krishnan Vs Rajat Saksena ) under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 pending in the Court Ld. Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow and the above case shall not be contested by brother of First Party or any family member.
B. That sccond party Neha Krishnan (Wife) agreed for full and final settlement of their disputes and differences including dissolution of their marriage in lieu of an amount of Rs. 30,00000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh only) as permanent alimony. The first party and the family members of husband (Rajat Saxena) are agree to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the second party in lieu of dissolution of marriage solemnized .between brother of First Party and Second party by mutual consent and for full and final settlement of their dispute and differences. Out of the said amount i. e. Rs. 30,00000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh only, a sum of Rs. 20,00000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) shall be paid today by way of a demand draft. The details of the demand draft is as under: 1. D. D. NO.000221 dated 02.12.2019 of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) in the nanme of Neha Krishnan issued from HDFC Bank, Sector 45 Noida Branch.
C. That the remaining amount of Rs. 10,00000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) shall be paid to the Second Party before Hon'ble Court on the date fixed at final hearing of Crl. M. C. No. 1989 of 2014 (U/S 482 Cr. P. C.) D. That the jewellery items and matrimonial items (Stridhan) as per the agreed list, brought by the first party ( Ritu Verma) has been handed over today i.e. 5/12/2019 to the second party -Neha Krishnan. The same has been acknowledged by the Second Party to her full satisfaction.
E. That both the parties undertake to withdrawn/not press all the cases filed against each other and against their family members; the details of which are as under:
i.) Complaint Case No. 1349 of 2014 U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act, (Neha Kishnan Vs. Rajat Saksen and others) pending in the Court of Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Lucknow.
ii.) Case No. 15932 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 617 of 2012 U/S 498A/506 of IPC AND 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (State of U. P. Vs. Rajat Saksena & Ors.) filed by Mr. C. Gopalkrishnan Nair, pending in the Court of Ld. CJM, Lucknow.
iii.) Crl. Case No. 850 of 2013 U/S 125 Cr. P. C. (Neha Krishnan Vs. Rajat Saksena) pending before Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow Now Renumbered as 347/14 pending before Fast Track Court Lucknow.
F. That the wife Neha Kirhsnan (Second Party) declares that she will not persue a Divorce Case No. 12D000657 Filed on 4th March, 2013 before the Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit Champaign Courty, Illinois, USA.
G. That it is agreed between the parties that this agreement will have a binding effect on brother (Rajat Saxena) & all the family member of the First Party & also on the family members of Second Party.
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 relatives or family members, in future with respect to their marriage or any matter incidental there to and if any proceeding has alrcady been initiated or pending at any stage, including the stage of investigation, the same would stand disposed off in terms of this Settlement Agreement.
I. That the parties agree that after aforesaid payment and exchange of articles and jewelery there remain nothing pending for payment between the parties. All disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through this settlement agreement.
J. That in Crl. M. C. No. 1989 of 2014 (U/S 482 Cr. P. C.) (Ritu Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.) an Impleadment Application has been moved by father Mr. Rajesh Saxen S/O Late R. P. Saxena & mother Mrs. Suman Saxena W/O Rajesh Saxena & husband Mr. Rajat Saxena which Shall not be objected by the Second Party.
K. That both the parties will be free to marry any person of their choice after passing of the decree of divorce and that there shall be no interference by any party of this settlement in the personal life of the other party.
6. By signing this agreement both the parties have agreed that they shall not any further claims or demand against each other. All disputes and differences in in this regard with respect to Crl. M. C. No. 1989 of 2014 (U/S Cr. P. C.) (Ritu Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.) have been amicably settled Mediation/conciliation."
5. Mr.H.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they will abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 will obey and comply with the settlement agreement.
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid settlement, Rs.20,00,000/- was paid by way of demand draft before the Mediation Centre and articles belonging to respondent No.3 were also been handed over. Demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/- has been given to respondent No.2, the complainant today. Thus, the petitioners have complied with the terms and condition of the agreement.
7. Respondent No.2 is present in the court who is identified by his lawyer, Mr. Nadeem Murtaza. Mr. Murtaza submits that respondent Nos.3 and 2 have no objection if the entire proceedings pending before C.J.M., Lucknow in Case No.617 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 506, 406 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.
8. Considering the nature of dispute and the parties have settled their dispute amicably through process of mediation and the petitioners have signed terms of settlement which respondent No.2 does not dispute and he accepts that the petitioners have complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
9. The petition is allowed and proceedings of charge-sheet bearing No.125 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.617 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 506, 406 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as well as entire proceedings pending in the Court of C.J.M., Lucknow in Crl. Case No.617 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 506, 406 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 prateek