Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2025CRLP/7221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute and referral to mediation; the opposite party refused mediation in person. The court returned a demand draft offered by petitioner no.1, continued interim protection against coercive steps, and listed the case for November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection from coercive steps continued till next listing; demand draft returned as mediation declined.

Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7221 of 2025

¶3

Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sonu Yadav, Ram Raj Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar Verma

¶8

Court No. - 9

¶9

HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Verma, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record.

¶11

This Court has passed the order dated 18.08.2025, which reads as under:-

¶12

"1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned AGA for the State.

¶13

2. Issue notice to opposite party no. 4 returnable at an early date.

¶14

3. Steps within a week.

¶15

4. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶16

5. By means of this petition the petitioners have assailed the F.I.R. dated 23.7.2025 registered at Case Crime No. 0719 of 2025, u/s 115(2), 352, 351(3), 127(2), 85, 109 B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki.

¶17

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the impugned F.I.R is an outcome of matrimonial dispute and the same may be settled through mediation and conciliation process. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that there are some more relevant facts in the matter which are necessary to be considered i.e. the petitioner no. 1 was in affairs with opposite

¶18

CRLP No. 7221 of 2025

¶19

¶20

party no. 4 and his marriage with opposite party no. 4 was a love marriage and he got his marriage registered before the Marriage Registering Authority as the certificate to this effect has been enclosed as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. However, he came to know later on that opposite party no. 4 was already married with one Pravesh Kumar who has filed one suite u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife who is opposite party no. 4 for restitution of conjugal rights but that suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 3.8.2022, such order has been enclosed with the writ petition.

¶21

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that having ulterior motive and extraneous design in her mind the opposite party no. 4 has not only implicated the present petitioner no. 1 but his entire family. The petitioners are needing amicable solution through mediation and conciliation process, therefore, the matter may be referred to such center.

¶22

8. Law is trite on the point that before sending the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Center the consent of the parties is required.

¶23

9. Therefore, the opposite party no. 4 and petitioners shall appear in person on the next date to apprise the Court as to whether both the parties are ready to settle their dispute amicably.

¶24

10. Petitioners are directed to bring a Demand Draft of Rs. 10,000/- to be drawn in favour of opposite party no. 4 on the next date.

¶25

11. List on 11.9.2025. On that date the petitioners and opposite party no. 4 shall appear in person.

¶26

12. The S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki shall ensure the presence of opposite party no. 4 before this Court on the the next date.

¶27

13. Till the next date of listing no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶28

14. Learned AGA shall intimate this order to the S.H.O. concerned for its compliance. "

¶29

In pursuance of earlier order, petitioner no.1- Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam, S/o late Bihari Lal, R/o Dharseniya,

¶30

CRLP No. 7221 of 2025

¶31

¶32

Nawabganj, District- Barabanki and respondent no.4- Mrs. Chandni, D/o Shyamlal, W/o Mahendra Pratap Gautam, R/o Village- Maholiya, Deva, District- Barabanki are present in person along with Ms. Kiran Devi, Sub-Inspector, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki.

¶33

In compliance of aforesaid order, petitioner no.1 has produced a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- drawn in the name of respondent no.4 and has submitted that he is willing to settle their dispute amicably through mediation at Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court but the respondent no.4 has refused to accept the demand draft and has stated that she is not willing to settle their dispute through mediation.

¶34

Since, the respondent no.4 is not agreeable to settle their dispute amicably through mediation, therefore, the demand draft is returned to the petitioner no.1

¶35

List this case in the week commencing 03.11.2025.

¶36

On the next date, parties as well as Officer present today need not to appear before this Court.

¶37

The interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing.

¶38

Registry is directed to show the name of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Verma, Advocate as counsel for respondent in the cause list whenever the case is listed next.

¶39

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) September 11, 2025

¶40

V. Sinha

¶41

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalpnath Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Brijesh Awasthi @ Brijesh Kumar Awasthi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Shesh Kumari Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Devesh Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and 4 Others

Awadhesh Dwivedi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ranjeet Saini Alias Shiv Poojan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Others