Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC upon finding that parties had successfully mediated and executed a settlement agreement, concluding further investigation would be an abuse of process.
Quashing of entire proceedings in Case No. 413 of 2016; Settlement agreement terms made rules of court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36267 of 2017
Applicant :- Pawan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Garun Pal Singh
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 413 of 2016 (Om Prakash Vs. Prem Singh and Others) under Section 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Highway, DistrictMathura, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Mathura.
Vide order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2019 by co-ordinate Bench, the dispute was referred to the Mediation Centre. After mediation proceeding, a report by the Mediation Centre was submitted in the aforesaid revision and after considering the said report, the following order was passed on 30.7.2020:
" Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA appearing for the State.
I have perused the interim order dated 20.11.2019 passed by another Bench of this Court by means of which the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Allahabad. The report of mediation centre dated 18.02.2020 shows that parties have entered into an agreement. A settlement agreement dated 18.02.2020 is on record along with report of mediation centre dated 18.02.2020.
I have also perused the settlement agreement dated 18.02.2020 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 revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.05.2019 as well as order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Criminal Case No.1155 of 2017(State Vs. Ravindra
and others), arising out of Case Crime No.18 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura is hereby quashed. Consequences shall follow.
It is provided that each of the terms incorporated in paragraph 7(a) to (f) of the settlement agreement dated 18.02.2020 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 my orders. The aforesaid direction is being made in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. "
Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance, the entire proceeding of Case No. 413 of 2016 (Om Prakash Vs. Prem Singh and Others) under Section 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police StationHighway, District- Mathura, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Mathura, is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 S.Verma
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings pending under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC can be quashed after parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan and 3 Others
State of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Sharma
Sandip Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
