Allowed

Ranjeet and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025A482/2583/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash complaint proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 354 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. Following a successful mediation settlement between the parties and settled law on quashing after compromise, the High Court allowed the application, quashed the impugned order and proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.12.2023 and entire complaint proceedings quashed; Family Court directed to decide pending Section 13B HMA case within 45 days.

Ranjeet and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18272

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2583 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present even in the revised list.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ranjeet, Kamlesh, Munni Devi, Kuldeep Singh and Arti Devi with the prayer to quash the order dated 10.12.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3803 of 2023, Karishma vs. Ranjeet and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Talgram, District Kannauj.

¶10

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 02.4.2024 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶11

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 25.09.2024 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them in view of the settlement agreement.

¶12

As per the office report dated 6.2.2025 a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and they have agreed to withdraw all cases

¶14

filed by them against each other in regarding present matrimonial disputes, para-7 (f) of the said settlement agreement has been placed for the same. It is argued that therefore the present petition be allowed and the impugned proceedings/charge sheet/cognizance/summoning order as prayed for be quashed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant states that a case under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Principal Judge concerned. Learned counsel assures that the applicants shall abide by all the terms and conditions of settlement agreement arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre of this Court and shall fully co-operate with expeditious disposal of the said case pending before concerned Family Court. He prayed that a direction for expeditious disposal of the same be given.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants as aforesaid.

¶17

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 25.09.2024 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(f) of the said mediation report.

¶18

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 64 1 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

¶19

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 impugned proceedings/charge sheet/cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicants.

¶20

The present application is allowed.

¶21

The impugned order dated 10.12.2023 and the proceedings are hereby quashed against the applicants.

¶22

However the Principal Judge, Family Court concerned is directed to expedite the hearing of the said case and decide the same within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 7.2.2025/Naresh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet and 4 Others v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sitaram Yadav vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kant vs State of U.P. and Another

Naeem Salmani and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Verma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanky and Another vs State of Up and Another