Ram Dutt Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4099 of 2024

¶3

Ram Dutt Chaubey

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Jitendra Prasad Kushwaha	Mishra,	Prakhar Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 91

¶6

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Prakhar Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot in Maintenance Case No. 99 of 2021 (Smt. Arti Chaubey vs. Ramdutt Chaubey) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 3000/- to opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of application.

¶9

Today, on the matter being taken up, learned counsels for the revisionist has stated that a settlement agreement have been entered into between the parties on 21st March, 2025.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned AGA in support compromise taken place between the parties has prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside while allowing the present criminal revision on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties and a settlement agreement dated 21st March, 2025 which has been enclosed with this revision.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the dispute between the parties being husband and wife are matrimonial in nature. The present proceedings came to be initiated by opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of

¶12

CRLR No. 4099 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

any real occurrence as alleged. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the present proceedings may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 does not wish to press any proceedings against the revisionist.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist or the correctness of the settlement agreement dated 21st March, 2025 brought on record by means of settlement agreement. He also submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶16

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶17

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶18

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶19

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶20

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶21

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶23

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot in Maintenance Case No. 99 of 2021 (Smt. Arti Chaubey vs. Ramdutt Chaubey) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed and instant criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

September 9, 2025 ( Madan Pal Singh,J.) C. MANI

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Dutt Chaubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dutt Chaubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases