Nitin Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

Nitin Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 50/12/2022 quashed; Office directed to communicate the order to the concerned court within two weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 50/12/2022 (proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Farrukhabad) set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in the aforesaid case (Misc. Case No. 50/12/2022) is quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The mediation between the parties succeeded: they entered an interim settlement dated 13.05.2023 and a settlement dated 12.07.2023, settled their grievances including the dispute arising in the present matter, and agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

Key takeaways

On perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject, the present case is a good case for exercising the powers of this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 69), Samit Gopal, J. — Application U/S 482 No. 42277 of 2022, Nitin Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (decided 30.10.2023). The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 50/12/2022 (proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Smt. Neha Sharma v. Nitin Sharma, P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad). None appeared for the applicant; the Court heard learned counsel for the State. By order dated 28.02.2023 the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre; per the report dated 12.07.2023, the parties entered an interim settlement dated 13.05.2023 and a settlement dated 12.07.2023, amicably settled their disputes and agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them (para 7-e of the mediation report). Noting the settled law laid down by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Shaifullah v. State of U.P., 2013 (83) ACC 278; and Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, that cases in which parties have settled their grievances can be quashed, the Court found this a fit case for exercise of its powers, allowed the application and quashed the impugned order dated 21.11.2022. Office was directed to communicate the order to the concerned court within two weeks.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206841

Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42277 of 2022

Applicant :- Nitin Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Heard with the assistance of Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Nitin Sharma with the prayer to allow the present application and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 50/12/2022 in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad (Smt. Neha Sharma Vs. Nitin Sharma), during the pendency of present application.

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

As per the office report dated 13.10.2023, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 12.07.2023 the parties have entered into an interim settlement dated 13.05.2023 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 12.07.2023 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases

going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7-e of the said mediation report.

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s).

The present application is allowed .

The impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today.

Order Date :- 30.10.2023 M. ARIF

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad