Rajesh Dubey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the instant petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 3129 of 1999 State of U.P. Vs. Rajesh Dubey and Others, under Sections 498-A IPC., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.12.1998 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 28.05.1999, arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 489 of 1998, Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, in terms of the compromise and settlement undertaken between the parties through settlement agreement dated 20.04.2024 undertaken before the Mediation Centre of this Court, which has been annexed at Page No.36.

¶10

It has further been contended that the settlement agreement annexed at Page No.36 of the instant application, specifically mentions that by signing this settlement agreement, the dispute/differences between parties, would be amicably settled, through process of conciliation and mediation, but nowhere in the said settlement agreement the details of the instant case against which the present criminal miscellaneous application has been preferred, is mentioned. Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the matter went up to the Apex Court and after

¶11

NA528 No. 45381 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

which, there was an order regarding payment of permanent alimony to the opposite party No.2, against which a First Appeal From Order has been preferred, which was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024, on the basis of the settlement agreement made between the parties. Though it has been mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2024 that all properties of the appellant that had been attached in compliance of the impugned order were released and on paragraph No.6 of page No.53, it has also been agreed between the parties that criminal cases instituted by the respondents against the appellant would be withdrawn and/or allow to withdraw or quashed at the instance of the appellant. Thus, the present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed on the basis of the settlement made between the parties.

¶14

It has also been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that a statement has been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, which has been annexed at page No.61 of the instant application. Since the instant criminal proceeding is pending before the Court below, therefore, it would be appropriate if parties appear before it and verified the said compromise made between them by the learned Court below. As requested by the learned counsel for the applicants, the copy of the said compromise be sent to the learned lower Court for getting it verified within two weeks. Thereafter the parties as well as the learned lower Court to submit the report to this Court.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the nature of the case, which is purely a matrimonial dispute, the applicants are required to be protected. Therefore, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No. 3129 of 1999 State of U.P. Vs. Rajesh Dubey and Others, under Sections 498-A IPC., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.12.1998 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 28.05.1999, arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 489 of 1998, Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, shall remain stayed .

¶16