Allowed

Smt. Satyawati Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019A482/19917/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and related provisions, relying on a valid settlement agreement reached via mediation where parties agreed to mutual divorce and withdrawal of cases.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the summoning order dated 06.04.2018 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 5805 of 2017, subject to compliance with the settlement agreement.

Smt. Satyawati Devi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19917 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Satyawati Devi And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anwar Hussain

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri A.Baigh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶4

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 06.04.2018 passed by J.M. Court No.1, District Aligarh as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.5805 of 2017 (Babita Sharma Vs. Suryakant @ Sonu and Ors.), under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this court vide order dated 01.06.2018 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. A settlement/agreement had arrived on 14.02.2019 between the parties. A copy of the same is on record. Perusal of the settlement/agreement thus reached reveals that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases between them. The said fact has been mentioned in paragraphs a to j of the settlement/agreement dated 14.02.2019. Paragraphs a to j of the said report reads as under:

¶6

"a) That the marriage of Sri Suryakant @ Sonu (Son of Applicant No.1, husband) and Smt. Babita Sharma (O.P. No.2, wife) was solemnized on 28.11.2014. Out of the aforesaid wedlock parties have a son Tanisq. His date of birth is 25.7.2015 who is living with his mother, O.P. No. 2. Due to strained relationship the parties have been living separately since 5.2.2016.

¶7

b) That as per Interim Settlement, Sri Suryakant @ Sonu (Son of Applicant No.1, husband) and Smt. Babita Sharma (O.P. No.2, wife) have decided to take mutual divorce on the condition that the husband will pay a permanent alimony including Stridhan of Rs. 07 Lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs only) to the wife in 03 installments.

¶8

c) That against the settled amount of alimony of Rs. 7 Lakhs, the petitioner (husband) handed over the first bank draft of Rs.2 Lakhs no. 264003 dated 11.1.2019 of SBI on 17.01.2019 at the time of filing divorce petition second bank draft is being paid at the mediation centre today of Rs. 2 Lakhs.

¶9

d) That on 14.02.2019 Sri Suryakant @ Sonu, husband had produced a

¶10

Demand Drafts of Rs.2 Lakhs (Rs Two lakhs only, (2nd Installment) bearing No.330150 dated 11.2.2019 issued by SBI, drawn in favour of wife which has been handed over to her today and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶11

e) That as agreed during the Interim Settlement the parties have filed a mutual divorce petition No.87/19 under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, before the competent Court, Principal Judge of Family Court at Aligarh and produced the certified copy of the same which has been annexed to this Settlement Agreement.

¶12

f) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 3 Lakhs (Rs three lakhs only) shall be paid by the husband to the wife by way of the demand draft drawn in her favour at the time of final judgment mutual divorce petition before the family court Aligarh, It is mutually contended that after arrangement of remaining amount parties may move an application to finalising the divorce petition at an early date.

¶13

g) That hereafter parties have no further claim against each other of any nature regard to the present case.

¶14

h) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall comply with the terms and conditions of this settlement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.

¶15

i) That it has been agreed between the parties that the all Criminal and Civil cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn/ quashed by thm by taking appropriate steps before the Court/ Authorities concerned within one month of this Settlement Agreement.

¶16

j) That the following cases shall be withdrawn/ quashing before the final decree passed by the competent court-

¶17

(1) Crl.u/s 125 Cr.p.c- 430 of 2017 (Babita & Another Vs. Suryakant @ Sonu)

¶18

(2) Crl. Case-5805 of 2017 (Babita Sharma Vs. Suryakant & Others) u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act

¶19

(3) Misc. case no.974 of 2017 (Babita Sharma Vs. Suryakant & Others) u/s 12,18, 19, 20, 22 of D.P. Act"

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the settlement/agreement arrived at between the parties on 14.02.2019 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶21

The present application is allowed , subject to the applicants complying with the terms of settlement agreement noted above.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.7.2019 Radhika

Smt. Satyawati Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Satyawati Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar (Manager, Mounts of Infra Developer Pvt. Ltd.) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shivratan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Namdev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Sunder Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gajendra Singh Negi Vs State of U.P. and Another