# Atma Ram Prajapati and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1415
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-21
- **Bench:** S.C. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atma-ram-prajapati-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42040
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Section
397/401-Criminal
Revision-against
summoning passed-ignoring compromise
between parties offence under Section
147,323,504,506,498
A-I.P.C.-with
section 3⁄4 D.P. Act -held-pure personal
family dispute settled by mediation
Center of High Court-held-without hope
of success of prosecution-futile exercises
to continue with proceeding-summoning
order quashed.

Held: Para 11

The present dispute between the parties
is of purely personal nature and is a
matrimonial dispute, which has been
mutually and amicably settled by the
parties
with
the
intervention
of
Mediation and Reconciliation Centre of
this Court. After compromise between
the parties, it would be futile to permit
criminal
case
pending
against
the
applicants to continue any further. As
parties have come to terms, it shall be
sheer waste of time of the Court, if the
criminal proceeding pending against the
revisionist is permitted to reach its
logical end without any hope for a result
in favour of the prosecution. In these
1416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
circumstances the revision deserves to
be allowed.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 4 SCC 582

## Text

3 All] Atma Ram Prajapati and others V. State of U.P. and another
1415
indicates that the Board of Revenue
while reviewing its order has made
certain observations on the merits of the
case. There is no dispute, so far about
the legal proposition with regard to the
scope and ambit of review is concerned,
the law in this regard is well settled as
held in the case of Meera Bhanja (Smt)
Vs.
Nirmala
Kumari
Choudhary
(Supra).

10. However, this fact is also to be
taken note of that the Additional
Commissioner while passing the order
dated 15.05.1992 had not considered the
relevant provisions of Section 132
(c)(vi) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and
Section 29-C of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, which are very
much necessary for proper adjudication
of the claim of the petitioner. As such,
although, I do not agree with the finding
given in the impugned order, however,
in the interest of justice I find it
necessary that the matter requires to be
re-considered by the competent court in
accordance with law, in deciding the
claim of the petitioner.

11. In this view of the matter, the
writ petition is disposed of finally with
the observation that the Collector,
Barabanki, shall pass fresh order under
Section 198(4) of the Z.A. Act after
giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned, in accordance with
law, expeditiously, say within a period
of three months from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced before the
Collector concerned.

12.

With
the
aforesaid
observations,
the
writ
petition
is
disposed of finally.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL,J.

Criminal Revision No. - 1147 of 2011

Atma Ram Prajapati and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sriprakash Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondnets:
Govt. Advocate
Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Section
397/401-Criminal
Revision-against
summoning passed-ignoring compromise
between parties offence under Section
147,323,504,506,498
A-I.P.C.-with
section 3⁄4 D.P. Act -held-pure personal
family dispute settled by mediation
Center of High Court-held-without hope
of success of prosecution-futile exercises
to continue with proceeding-summoning
order quashed.

Held: Para 11

The present dispute between the parties
is of purely personal nature and is a
matrimonial dispute, which has been
mutually and amicably settled by the
parties
with
the
intervention
of
Mediation and Reconciliation Centre of
this Court. After compromise between
the parties, it would be futile to permit
criminal
case
pending
against
the
applicants to continue any further. As
parties have come to terms, it shall be
sheer waste of time of the Court, if the
criminal proceeding pending against the
revisionist is permitted to reach its
logical end without any hope for a result
in favour of the prosecution. In these
1416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
circumstances the revision deserves to
be allowed.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 4 SCC 582

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J. )

1. Affidavit filed today is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Prakash Dwivedi,
learned AGA for the State and Sri Vipin
Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the
complainant- opposite party no. 2.

3. This revision under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the
order dated 14.1.2011 passed by C.J.M.,
Mirzapur in Complaint Case No. 4485 of
2010, Pooja Devi Vs. Atma Ram and
others, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506,
498A IPC and D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali
Katra, District- Mirzapur, whereby the
revisionist- Atmaram Prajapati, Ramnath
Prajapati, Ranno Devi, Dinesh Kumar,
Mahesh and Anita were summoned to
face trial, under Sections 147, 323, 504,
506 498A IPC and D.P. Act.

4. Since it is matrimonial dispute, in
pursuance of order dated 24.2.2011
passed by Hon. B.K. Narayan, J, the
matter was referred to Mediation and
Conciliation of this Court.

5. Parties appeared before Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of this Court on
20.4.2011and 17.5.2011 and settlement
was arrived at between the parties and
settlement-agreement was executed on
19.5.2011.

6. Para 5 of the settlementagreement is as follows :-

"The parties hereto confirm and
declare that they voluntarily and of their
own free will arrived at this Settlement
Agreement in the presence of the
Mediation/ Conciliator.

a. That Sri Atma Ram Prajapati
(revisionist no.1-husband) and Smt. Pooja
Devi (opposite party no. 2-wife) have
amicably resolved all their matrimonial
issues that have arisen between them over
the years by opting for separation and
divorce.

b. That wife Smt. Pooja Devi has
accepted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her
husband Atma Ram Prajapati through a
demand draft bearing no. 964402 dated
16.5.2011 purchased from Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Katra Bazi Rao Branch,
Mirzapur as a lumpsum settlement of all
her claims to maintenance, alimony,
stridhan and other cognate claims by
whatever name called.

c. That in addition, the husband has
delivered to his wife a gold ring and a
gold chain which Smt. Pooja Devi/ wife
has accepted.

d. That both parties do now agree
that they have no other claim monetary or
otherwise against one another arising out
of their matrimonial relationship.

e. that Atma Ram Prajapati and his
wife Smt. Pooja Devi agree that they will
file for divorce by mutual consent before
the Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur within
15 days from date u/s 13B Hindu
Marriage Act ; and, both parties do
further undertake that they will not
withdraw
their
consent
from
those
proceedings until decree for divorce is
passed by the Family Court,. Both parties
3 All] Atma Ram Prajapati and others V. State of U.P. and another
1417
also agree that the Hon'ble Court may in
its discretion and subject to its pleasure
direct the Family Court Judge to expedite
of the divorce matter.

f. That the wife Smt. Pooja Devi
undertakes to withdraw proceeding for
maintenance initiated by her u/s 125
Cr.P.C. against her husband, said to be
pending before the concerned Magistrate
at Mirzapur, unconditionally within 15
days from date.

g. That the husband Atra Ram
Prajapati undertakes to unconditionally
withdraw a petition for restitution of
conjugal right filed by him u/s 9 Hindu
Marriage Act before the Judge, Family
Court, Mirzapur within 15 days from
date, which the wife undertakes not to
oppose for costs.

h. That both parties agree that the
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 4485 of
2010 u/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC
and D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Katra,
Mirzapur, pending in the Court of the
learned CJM, Mirzapur may in the
discretion and subject to pleasure of the
Hon'ble Court be quashed.

i. That both parties hereby covenant
that they will not institute or prosecute
any fresh or further legal proceeding
against one another or their family
members of any nature, either civil or
criminal".

7. Learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 admits that respondent no. 2 has
received a sum of Rs. 1 lac from her
husband as provided in para 5 (b) of the
settlement-agreement and she has no
objection if the proceedings pending
before the Magistrate are quashed.

8. Though the revisionist has
challenged the summoning order by
means of criminal revision, since it is a
matrimonial dispute and parties have
come to terms and, therefore, this court
can also exercise power under Section
482
Cr.P.C.
and
can
quash
the
proceedings
on
the
ground
of
compromise.

9. The revisionist no. 1 and opposite
party no. 2 have also filed a petition for
divorce by mutual consent under Section
13 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act before
the
Principal Judge,
Family
Court,
Mirzapur and parties have decided not to
withdraw their consent.

10. The Apex Court in the case of
'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Punjab' reported as (2008) 4 SCC 582
emphasized in para No. 6 as follows :-

"6. We need to emphasize that it is
perhaps advisable that in disputes where
the question involved is of a purely
personal
nature,
the
Court
should
ordinarily accept the terms of the
compromise even in criminal proceedings
as keeping the matter alive with no
possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the Courts,
grossly overburdened as they are, cannot
afford and that the time so saved can be
utilised in deciding more effective and
meaningful litigation. This is a common
sense approach to the matter based on
ground of realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law."

11. The present dispute between the
parties is of purely personal nature and is
a matrimonial dispute, which has been
mutually and amicably settled by the
parties with the intervention of Mediation
1418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
and Reconciliation Centre of this Court.
After compromise between the parties, it
would be futile to permit criminal case
pending against the applicants to continue
any further. As parties have come to
terms, it shall be sheer waste of time of
the Court, if the criminal proceeding
pending
against
the
revisionist
is
permitted to reach its logical end without
any hope for a result in favour of the
prosecution. In these circumstances the
revision deserves to be allowed.

12. The revision is allowed. The
impugned
summoning
order
dated
14.1.2011 is quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE D.K ARORA,J.

Service Bench No. - 1347 of 2010

Dr.Rakesh Kumar Mishra and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.
Through
Principal
Secy.Medical and Health Lko.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri L.P.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri A.K. Vishwakarma
Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi
Sri Prashant Singh Atal

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Selection-preference to local candidate
go by to merit-if local candidate much
below in merit in comparison of outside
candidates-no right to question the
mode of selection-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 9

Thus, priority or precedence would not
mean a reservation for local candidates
nor would it mean drawing of a separate
merit list for them. It is only on the
comparative assessment on merit of
local candidates vis-a-vis outsiders that
the local candidates if otherwise found
eligible but left behind with narrow
margin may get priority and sympathetic
consideration in comparison with the
outsiders. But in the instant case, the
selected candidates secured 50 marks
and above whereas the petitioners have
obtained the marks only within the
range of 30. Thus, in that case, they
would not be entitled to get any priority
over the outsiders.
Case law discussed:
Civil Appeal Nos.5757-5759 of 2002 (State of
U.P. & another vs. Om Prakash and others);
[2007 (25) LCD 1427]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.)

1. We have heard learned counsel
for parties and perused the pleadings of
writ petitions.

2. This order shall also dispose of
connected Writ Petition No.1614 (S/B) of
2010 as both the writ petitions impugn the
same cause of action, namely, the exercise
of selection process completed pursuant
to the advertisement dated 23.06.2010
(Annexure-2 to the writ petition).

3. Learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that as per condition no.1 of the
advertisement, the candidates of the
district concerned are to get priority/
precedence over other candidates in the
selection, whereas in the instant case the
local candidates have not been given any
priority and instead the outsiders have