Saurabh Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Saurabh Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 83 days in filing the revision condoned; revision allowed and impugned order set aside in terms of the mediation settlement agreement; copy of the order to be forwarded to the learned Family Court concerned for communication and necessary compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 83-day delay in filing the criminal revision ought to be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

For the reasons shown in the affidavit accompanying the condonation of delay and considering the duration of the delay, the 83-day delay is sufficiently explained and is condoned; the condonation application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Since the mediation has been successful, it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings be brought to an end in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Key takeaways

The revision stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside in terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre; a copy of the order is to be forwarded to the learned Family Court concerned for communication and necessary compliance.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 313 of 2024 — Saurabh Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; order dated April 6, 2026): (i) the revision, reported delayed by 83 days by the Stamp Reporting Section, was held to be sufficiently explained on the affidavit accompanying the condonation application and the delay was condoned; (ii) the matter had been referred to the Mediation Centre of the Court vide order dated 23.02.2025, subject to deposit of Rs. 40,000/- by the revisionist, and the Mediation Centre report dated 09.09.2025 recorded that the mediation proceedings had been concluded successfully, a fact admitted by counsel for respondent no. 2; (iii) on the joint request of counsel, the parties being no longer inclined to proceed with the maintenance case after the settlement, the Court held it to be in the interest of justice to bring the proceedings to an end in terms of the settlement; (iv) accordingly, the revision was allowed and the impugned order was set aside in terms of the settlement agreement entered into before the Mediation Centre, with a copy of the order directed to be forwarded to the learned Family Court concerned for communication and necessary compliance.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 313 of 2024

Saurabh Shukla

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Another	Home Lko	. And	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ashish Pandey,	Kumar Yogeshw	Srivastava, Priyanka ar Sharan Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Shukla	Nasreen	Bano, Permanand

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

(Order on Condonation of Delay Application)

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

As per the report of the Stamp Reporting Section, the revision is delayed by 83 days for which the application for condonation of delay has been filed.

For the reasons shown in the affidavit accompanying the condonation of delay and keeping in view with the duration of delay, the delay is sufficiently explained.

Accordingly, the application is allowed . The delay is hereby condoned.

Office is directed to allot regular number.

(Order on Revision)

Learned counsel for the revisionist drew the attention of the Court to the report of the Mediation Centre dated 09.09.2025, wherein it has been stated that the mediation proceedings have been concluded successfully. The said report has been annexed. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2

CRLRD No. 313 of 2024

2

also admitted the aforesaid fact.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly made a request that the present revision be allowed in terms of the mediation settlement agreement executed between the parties, as they are no longer inclined to proceed with the maintenance case after having entered into a settlement before the Mediation Centre.

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that this Court had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2025, subject to deposit of Rs. 40,000/- by the revisionist. Since the mediation has been successful, it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings be brought to an end in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

In view of the above, the revision stands allowed, and the impugned order is hereby set aside in terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Family Court concerned for communication and necessary compliance.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

April 6, 2026

Raj

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench