Allowed

Ashish Chandra Mohanty v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022CRLR/458/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. The court accepted a settlement agreement between the revisionist husband and the respondent wife, conditioned upon payment of alimony, and quashed the pending criminal trial arising from the matrimonial dispute.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07.02.2020 rejecting the discharge application and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4821 of 2019 under Sections 498A and 506 IPC are quashed.

Ashish Chandra Mohanty Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 458 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ashish Chandra Mohanty Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amrendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Yash Padiya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.

¶4

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.5, Ghaziabad whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected and further prayer that discharge the revisionist from the charges under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police StationIndirapuram, District-Ghaziabad.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. When the matter came up before this Court, time was granted to the parties to settle their dispute amicably. On 03.03.2021, the following order was passed:-

¶6

"Pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2021, the revisionist, namely, Ashish Chandra Mohanty and opposite party no.2, namely, Dr. Shweta Mohanty are present before this Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶7

During course of mediation between the parties before this Court, the parties have decided to live separately and need some time to settle the issue of the amount of permanent alimony, which has been paid by the revisionist to the opposite party no.2.

¶8

Prayer so made is bona fide. Accordingly, the same is allowed.

¶9

Put up this case on 25th March, 2021 in the additional cause list for further hearing along with connected matter.

¶10

On the next date fixed, revisionist and opposite party no.2 shall appear before this Court again.

¶11

Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

¶12

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2021, the revisionist, namely, Ashish Chandra Mohanty and the opposite

¶13

party no.2, namely, Dr. Shweta Mohanty are present in Court today, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsels.

¶14

During pendency of this matter before this Court, the parties have settled their dispute as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Memorandum of Understating (MOU) filed before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. One of the conditions mentioned in the said Memorandum of Understanding is as follows:-

¶15

"12. The payment shall be made by the first party to the second party in the followings manner:-

¶16

(a) Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs only), Cheque No.227261 dated 22.03.2021 drawn on State Bank of India at the time of signing of the aforesaid "MOU" before the Hon'ble court/Mediation Centre before the Hon'ble Judge, Mediation Centre. The first party has issued the above stated cheque. The same shall be replaced by Demand Draft against receipt of above stated cheque at the time of singing of first motion petition on 23d of March, 2021.

¶17

(b) Demand Draft of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs only) at the time of recording of statement during the first motion for divorce by mutual consent.

¶18

(c) Demand Draft of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs only) at the time of recording of statement during the second motion for divorce by mutual consent.

¶19

(d) Demand Draft of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs only) at the time of making the statement by the second party before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.4821 of 2019 (Old No. 5684 of 2013), pending adjudication in the court of ACJM, Ghaziabad arising out of Crime No.2759 of 2010."

¶20

On the basis of aforesaid terms and conditions, divorce decree has been passed. Today, as per the condition no.12(d) regarding payment of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs only), the revisionist-husband has come up with the Demand Draft of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs only), dated 20.07.2022 issued from State Bank of India in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) before this Court. The said Demand Draft of Rs. 25,00,000/(Twenty-five Lakhs only) has been handed over to Dr. Shweta Mohanty (opposite party no.2) in front of the learned counsels and she acknowledges the same, photo copy of the said demand draft has been passed on to the Court today, is kept on record.

¶21

After receiving the aforesaid amount, the relationship between the parties as husband and wife would be permanently severed and dissolved and Dr. Shweta Mohanty would not claim any amount from the revisionist-husband by way of maintenance,

¶22

stridhan or any other head.

¶23

Since the parties have amicably settled their disputes, the learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶24

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶25

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶26

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶27

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶28

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶30

Accordingly, the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.5, Ghaziabad and the entire proceedings of Case. 4821 of 2019 (Old No.5684 of 2013), arising out of Case Crime No. 2759 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Indirapuram, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.8, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed .

¶31

The criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Jitendra/-

¶33

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.07.28 16:25:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Chandra Mohanty v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Chandra Mohanty v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Patel Alias Dinesh Vs State of U.P.and Another