Listing order in an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under S. 498A IPC and DP Act. Parties agreed to settle via mediation; court directed payment of remaining settlement amount and return of jewelry to facilitate mutual divorce decree in Delhi.
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. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 471 of 2024 Applicant :- Manmohan Pandey And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Salik Ram Tiwari,Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard.
2. This Court has passed the order dated 27.02.2024, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard.
2. This Court has passed the order dated 19.01.2024 which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey vs. Manmohan Pandey and others), u/s 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, as well as the impugned order dated 15.12.2023, whereby the application of the applicants u/s 177/178 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature and they have settled their dispute through a written compromise dated 19.10.2022. As per the compromise, the applicants were required to pay Rs.18 Lakh to opposite party No.2 wherein the applicants have already paid Rs. 10 Lakh on 19.10.2022 through DD No. 513402 of ICICI Bank, Shalimar, Delhi and the remaining amount of Rs.08 Lakh could not be paid because of some financial problem.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the opposite party No.2 has herself admitted in her statement u/s 244 Cr.P.C. that she has entered into compromise dated 19.10.2022 and received Rs. 10 Lakh and remaining Rs. 8 Lakh has not been paid by the applicants.
As now the applicants have to pay Rs.8 Lakh as per the compromise, just to show their bona fide applicants are ready to bring a draft of Rs.02 Lakh in favour of opposite party No.2 within ten days and also want to settle the dispute through mediation.
The said draft shall be kept in the custody of Senior Registrar of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, which will be handed over to opposite party No.2 on her appearance before the Senior Registrar.
Issue notice to opposite party No.2.
List on 5.2.2024 as fresh.
Till the next date of listing, the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey vs. Manmohan Pandey and others), u/s 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, shall remain stayed.
It is made clear that if the applicants failed to submit a draft as mentioned above before the Senior Registrar within a period of ten days from today, then this interim order shall automatically stand vacated."
3. Today, Ms. Pragya Pandey, opposite party no. 2 is present before the Court in person.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that he has specific instructions from his clients that they are ready to settle the dispute amicably through Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that till date, petitioner no. 1 has given a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(ten lacs) to opposite party no. 2, wife of petitioner no. 1.
5. The attention has been drawn of this Court towards Annexure no. 7 which is a settlement agreement before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Civil Court Campus, Pratapgarh. As per the aforesaid settlement agreement, petitioner no. 1 was prepared to pay Rs. 18,00,000/(eighteen lacs) to opposite party no. 2 and he shall return her entire jewellery.
6. So as to know as to whether the jewellery, which has been indicated in the aforesaid compromise agreement, has been returned to opposite party no. 2 and as to whether the petitioner is willing to settle his dispute amicably, his personal appearance would be required.
7. Accordingly, list this case on 19.03.2024. On that date, petitioner no. 1, namely, Manmohan Pandey and opposite party no. 2, namely, Pragya Pandey shall again appear in person.
8. The draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) has been deposited before this Court, therefore, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 may file an application for release of the aforesaid amount and if such application is filed, the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lacs) shall be released to opposite party no. 2, after being verified by her counsel.
9. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing."
3. Today, Sri Manmohan Pandey, the petitioner, and Ms. Pragya Pandey, the opposite party No.2, are present in person before the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown the Demand Draft of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) bearing No.515279 dated 18.03.2024 in favour of Ms. Pragya Pandey to submit that he wants to pay the aforesaid amount to Ms. Pragya Pandey. He has further submitted that since the suit for mutual divorce is pending consideration in the District Court, Rohini, Delhi bearing Case No.822 of 2020 so the opposite party No.2 may be directed to appear before the court concerned so that the aforesaid suit may be decided and the decree of mutual divorce may be issued.
5. On that, the opposite party No.2 has stated that though she has filed one appeal before the Apex Court seeking transfer of the case from Delhi to Pratapgarh but now she has not pressed that appeal and she is ready to appear before the Rohini Court at Delhi to get the decree of mutual divorce, but in the meantime, the petitioner No.1 may be directed to pay the remaining amount in terms of an agreement to the opposite party No.2 and her gold Necklace be also returned to her.
6. On that, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the presence of the petitioner No.1, has stated that he is ready to return the gold Necklace to the opposite party No.2 and also ready to make payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, but both the aforesaid things i.e. gold Necklace and the remaining amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) may be given before the Court at Delhi and the court concerned at Delhi may indicate this fact while granting the decree of mutual divorce. He has also submitted showing his bonafide that if the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and her gold Necklace are not given to her, she may disagree to take mutual divorce before the court concerned.
7. On that, the opposite party No.2 has stated that if the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) and her gold Necklace are given to her before the issuance of decree of mutual divorce she will participate in the proceedings and may request the court concerned to issue the decree of mutual divorce.
8. For doing the aforesaid exercise, one month time is provided to the parties.
9. Today, the Demand Draft of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) (supra) is handed over to Ms. Pragya Pandey in the presence of their respective counsels and before the Court.
10. List this case on 24.04.2024. On that date, the parties who are present before the Court, need not to appear again as the aforesaid development may inform by the respective counsels for the parties.
11. Interim order to continue till the next date of listing.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Suresh/
Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Manmohan Pandey
Pragya Pandey
State Of U.P.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
