Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1297 of 2023 Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Seema Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Ms. Seema Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-1 for the State and perused the records.

¶3The present revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist Anil Kumar with the prayer to allow the present revision and quash the judgement and order dated 30.1.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Crl. Case No.23 of 2019 (Sandhya Vs. Anil Kumar) u/s 125 Cr.P.C, P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur.

¶4The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2023 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶5As per report of Mediation Centre dated 17.8.2023, the parties have entered into an settlement dated 17.8.2023 in view of interim settlement dated 27.7.2023 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶6As per the office report dated 27.9.2023, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.

¶7From 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

17.8.2023 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7(g) of the said mediation report.

¶8Learned counsel for the revisionist states that a case under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the concerned trial court. He prays that a direction for expeditious disposal of the same be given.

¶9The 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 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

¶10From 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 proceedings as prayed for by the revisionist.

¶11The present revision is allowed.

¶12The proceedings of the present case as well as the impugned order in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶13However the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur 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.

¶14Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Gaurav Kuls High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad