# Sai Nageswar Satchidanand v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 922
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 16146 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sai-nageswar-satchidanand-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-53275
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Sections 226 & 243-R(b) - Indian Penal
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
923
Code, 1860 - Sections 171-F, 188, 384,
500, 501,498-A, 323, 504, 420, 344 & 386
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
-
Sections 125 & 482 - Information and
Technology Act, 2008 - Section 67 -
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
Sections 215 & 379 - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Sections 12, 12(1)(a), 13, 13-B,
13-B(1) & 13-B(2) - Dowery Prohibition
Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Mediation Act,
2023 - Sections 27, 27(1) & 27(2) - Civil
Procedure Code - Order 23, Rules 3 - Writ
Petition - to quash an FIR - arose from a
marital dispute between the petitioner and the
informant (his wife) - after legal proceedings,
both opted for mediation and executed binding
interim and final settlement agreements -
agreed to mutual divorce under Section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act - petitioner paid ₹20
lakh in two parts as full settlement - informant
agreed
to
withdraw
all
pending
criminal/maintenance cases and not pursue FIR
against
petitioner,
though
retained
rights
against others - despite informant opposing the
writ petition later, the Court noted that, she had
accepted full settlement and never contested
the agreement - FIR predated the settlement,
but informant undertook in divorce proceedings
not to pursue it - Court finds that, (i) crime in
question is between the parties, who have
already settled their previous acrimonious
relations in terms of the agreement - (ii) the
agreement acted upon and legally binding under
Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023 - held
that, (i) if dispute between the parties is
resolved by consent then such settlement must
not be reopened unless one of the above noted
mischiefs is pleaded and proved - (ii) a
mediated settlement agreement resulting from a
mediation
signed
by
the
parties
and
authenticated by the mediator shall be final and
binding on the parties, (iii) relying on SC
precedents (Banwari Lal, Gian Singh, Charu
Kishor Mehta), observed that litigation postsettlement is abuse of process - hence, FIR was
quashed under Article 226 and informant's
application under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023
was rejected. (Para - 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,923 of 65,500. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39923 for what follows._

922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others (Supra) and a Division Bench
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in
the case of Gurmukh Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others (Supra), relying on
Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and others (Supra), have passed
the orders.

16. The aforesaid proposition has
been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Joginder Singh vs. State of
Haryana and others; 2021 (2) R.C.R.
(Civil) 109.

17. Adverting to the facts of the
present case, it is apparent that a wall has
been constructed on a public land by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners,
which is being used as a way to come on
the main way. The petitioner no. 2-Mishri
Lal
Ojha
has
admitted
in
his
evidence/cross-examination that the wall
was constructed by predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioners. The only plea has been
taken that since the finding has been
recorded that in case adjacent to the same if
construction is made in future, the public
way may be obstructed, whereas, the order
could not have been passed merely on the
basis of presumption of happening in the
future, but it cannot be disputed that the
wall has been constructed on a public land
and as per Section 133 Cr.P.C., the
unlawful obstruction or nuisance over any
public place or over any way, river or
channel which is or may be lawfully used
by the public is required to be removed.
Thus,
any
person
cannot
unlawfully
obstruct or create nuisance on a public
place or over any way and if it has been
done or construction is raised, the same is
liable to be removed under Section 133
Cr.P.C. Merely because it may not have
completely created obstruction to the
public, it cannot be said that the person,
who has created such an obstruction or
nuisance, can be allowed to continue with
the same. Since the orders challenged in
earlier writ petition were neither stayed nor
modified, therefore, the learned Magistrate
had rightly and in acordance with law
directed for their execution. Learned
Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court
have passed the orders in accordance with
law on the basis of pleadings, evidence and
material on record, which does not suffer
from any illegality or error. Thus, it does
not call for any interference by this Court.
Both the writ petitions have been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds, which
lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

18. In view of above, both the writ
petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 15379 of 2019 and Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 17172 of 2019 are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 922
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 16146 of 2024

Sai Nageswar Satchidanand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), Sri Sudeep Harkauli,
Sri Vaibhav, Sri Amit Saxena (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Ms. Ujjwal Gupta
Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Sections 226 & 243-R(b) - Indian Penal
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
923
Code, 1860 - Sections 171-F, 188, 384,
500, 501,498-A, 323, 504, 420, 344 & 386
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
-
Sections 125 & 482 - Information and
Technology Act, 2008 - Section 67 -
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
Sections 215 & 379 - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Sections 12, 12(1)(a), 13, 13-B,
13-B(1) & 13-B(2) - Dowery Prohibition
Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Mediation Act,
2023 - Sections 27, 27(1) & 27(2) - Civil
Procedure Code - Order 23, Rules 3 - Writ
Petition - to quash an FIR - arose from a
marital dispute between the petitioner and the
informant (his wife) - after legal proceedings,
both opted for mediation and executed binding
interim and final settlement agreements -
agreed to mutual divorce under Section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act - petitioner paid ₹20
lakh in two parts as full settlement - informant
agreed
to
withdraw
all
pending
criminal/maintenance cases and not pursue FIR
against
petitioner,
though
retained
rights
against others - despite informant opposing the
writ petition later, the Court noted that, she had
accepted full settlement and never contested
the agreement - FIR predated the settlement,
but informant undertook in divorce proceedings
not to pursue it - Court finds that, (i) crime in
question is between the parties, who have
already settled their previous acrimonious
relations in terms of the agreement - (ii) the
agreement acted upon and legally binding under
Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023 - held
that, (i) if dispute between the parties is
resolved by consent then such settlement must
not be reopened unless one of the above noted
mischiefs is pleaded and proved - (ii) a
mediated settlement agreement resulting from a
mediation
signed
by
the
parties
and
authenticated by the mediator shall be final and
binding on the parties, (iii) relying on SC
precedents (Banwari Lal, Gian Singh, Charu
Kishor Mehta), observed that litigation postsettlement is abuse of process - hence, FIR was
quashed under Article 226 and informant's
application under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023
was rejected. (Para - 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Charu Kishor Mehta Vs Prakash Patel &Ors -
SLP(C) No. 11030 of 2022 - decided on
22.06.2022,

2. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors.- AIR
2019 SC 1296,

3. Subrata Roy Sahara Vs U.O.I.&ors. - (2014) 8
SCC 470,

4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun. - 2012(10) SCC
303,

5. Banwari Lal Vs Chando Devi - (1993) 1 SCC
581,

6.
Kale
&
ors.Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation - AIR 1976 SC 807

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J. & Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Saxena, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vaibhav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Ujjwal
Gupta,
respondent
no.
4
(informant), in person and Shri Paritosh
Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for the
State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is
preferred under Article 226 of Constitution
of India seeking following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of writ of certiorari for
quashing the First Information Report dated
18.05.2023 registered as Case Crime
No.358 of 2023 under Sections 501, 500,
384, 188, 171-F IPC and Section 67 I.T.
Act, 2008, Police Station Firozabad North,
District Firozabad (Annexure No.1 to this
writ petition).

ii.
Issue
a
writ,
order
or
+direction in the nature of writ of
mandamus commanding and give direction
to the respondents to submit the progress
report in Case Crime No.358 of 2023 under
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 501, 500, 384, 188, 171-F, I.P.C.
and 67 I.T. Act, 2008, Police Station
Firozabad North, District Firozabad, which
is pending against the petitioner.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to arrest
the petitioners in Case Crime No.358 of
2023 under Sections 501, 500, 384, 188,
171-F, I.P.C. and 67 I.T. Act, 2008, Police
Station
Firozabad
North,
District
Firozabad.

iv. Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may
deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
circumstances of the case.

v. Award the cost of the writ
petition to the petitioners."

3. During the pendency of the present
writ petition, the respondent no.4 had filed
Criminal Misc. Application No.Nil of 2025
under Section 379 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seeking direction
to the Registrar of this Court to file a
complaint against the petitioner and his
counsel namely Dheeraj Singh Bohra in
terms of Section 215 of BNSS, 2023 read
with Section 379 of BNSS, 2023 before the
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction for
making false and misleading statements
with
dishonest
suppression
and
concealment of material facts before this
Court.

FACTUAL
MATRIX
OF
THE
CASE

4. A compendium of the controversy
involved in the instant case is that the
petitioner belongs to the State of Orissa.
The marriage between the petitioner and
the respondent no.4 (informant) was
solemnized on 29.06.2020 according to
Hindu rites and rituals and no child was
born from the said wedlock. Since
20.07.2021 they were not able to live
together as husband and wife due to their
incompatibility
of
nature
and
temperamental differences. There was
bleak chance and probability of their living
together as husband and wife as their
marital relation virtually came to an end
w.e.f. 20.07.2021. Both have instituted
multiple proceedings against each other,
which are as follows:-

(i). The petitioner moved an
application under Section 12 (1) (a) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 19552 against the
informant, which was registered as HMA
No.426
of
2022
(Sai
Nageswar
Satchidanand vs. Ujjwal Gupta) seeking
annulment
of
marriage
and
learned
Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court,
Firozabad
had
dismissed
the
same.
However, the petitioner also agreed to
withdraw it completely.

(ii). The informant had lodged a
Criminal Case against the petitioner and his
family members, which was registered as
Case Crime No.126 of 2023 under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of
D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana,
District Firozabad. In the said matter, the
charge sheet was forwarded to the
competent court on 12.03.2022, which was
challenged
in
Application
U/S
482
No.24039
of
2023
(Sai
Nageswar
Satchidanand vs. State of UP and another).
The matter was referred for mediation on
07.07.2023, wherein the parties have
settled
the
matter
vide
settlement
agreement dated 03.01.2024 and agreed to
withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed
against each other. Finally, after perusing
the report of the Mediation Centre, learned
Single
Judge
had
allowed
the
said
application on 31.01.2024 and quashed the
entire proceedings relating to the said case.
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
925

(iii). The informant had also filed
a complaint against the petitioner and his
family members under Section 12 of
Protection of Women From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (Case No.375 of 2022),
which was pending consideration before
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Firozabad and later on, the same was
withdrawn.

(iv). The informant had also filed
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
against the petitioner, which was initially
seized before learned Additional Principal
Judge-II, Family Court, Firozabad and later
on, the same was also withdrawn.

(v). The petitioner had lodged the
first
information
report
against
the
informant and her family members, which
was registered as Case Crime No.0136 of
2022 under Sections 420, 504, 344, 323,
386 IPC, P.S. Firozabad North, District
Firozabad.
After
investigation,
the
investigating officer had forwarded a final
report to the competent court. Aggrieved by
the final report, the petitioner filed a protest
petition and the same was treated as a
Complaint Case No.22703 of 2023. Later
on, the same was also withdrawn.

(vi). The informant had lodged
the FIR against the petitioner and some
other persons, which was registered as Case
Crime No.0358 of 2023, P.S. Firozabad
North, District Firozabad under Sections
171-F, 188 384, 500, 501 IPC and Section
67 of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 (the
impugned FIR in the instant matter).

5. During the pendency of aforesaid
cases, the petitioner filed an application
U/S 482 No.24039 of 2023 before this
Court wherein the learned Single Judge
vide an order dated 07.07.2023 referred the
matter for mediation. After various sittings,
the parties decided for peaceful burial of
their acrimonial relation and entered into a
mutual settlement of all their disputes and
also agreed to prefer an application under
Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 for decree of
divorce by mutual consent in terms of the
conditions recorded in the final settlement
agreement dated 03.01.2024, which was
duly signed and executed between the
parties. It would be apt to reproduce the
relevant
clauses
of
the
settlement
agreement dated 03.01.2024 as under:-

"5. The marriage of Sai Nageswar
Satchidanand
(Applicant-Husband)
and
Smt. Ujjawal Gupta (O.P. No.2-Wife) was
solemnized on 29.06.2020, which was
registered on August, 2020 before the
Registrar Marriages. Out of aforesaid
wedlock, parties have no issue. The parties
have
been
living
separately
since
20.07.2021.

6. The parties hereto confirm and
declare that they have voluntarily and of
their own free will arrive at this Settlement
Agreement
in
the
presence
of
the
Mediators/Conciliators.

7. In view of the Interim Settlement
Agreements
dated
19.10.2023
and
06.12.2023. The following settlement has
been arrived at between the parties hereto:-

(a) That the parties have already
settled their dispute and decided to live
separately and in this regard they have filed
a petition U/S 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act before the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Firozabad and the same is registered
as H.M.A. Petition No.1088 of 2023. The
photocopy of the aforesaid divorce petition
is being annexed to this settlementagreement for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court.

(b) That it has been agreed
between the parties that the applicant-
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
husband shall pay one time settlement
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lakh only) which includes permanent
alimony and Stridhan of the wife by way of
Demand Draft.

(c) That on 19.10.2023, the
applicant-husband has produced a demand
draft bearing No.504055 dated 16.10.2023
for Rs.10,10,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
only) drawn on ICICI Bank in favour of
Ujjwal Gupta (wife) and the same has been
handed over to the wife today i.e.
03.01.2024 and she has acknowledged the
receipt of the same.

(d) That it has been agreed
between the parties that the remaining
amount i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) shall be paid by Sai Nageswar
Satchidanand (Applicant-Husband) to Smt.
Ujjawal Gupta (O.P. No.2-wife) at the time
of final judgement in H.M.A. Petition
No.1088 of 2023 pending in the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad
by way of demand draft.

(e) That in view of the para 7 (f)
of
the
II
interim
Settlement
dated
06.12.2023, the Applicant has produced the
certified copy of the order of withdrawal
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Firozabad in Case No.22703/2023 filed
U/S 420, 506, 344, 323, 386 IPC. The
certified copy of the same is being annexed
to this settlement-agreement for kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(f) That as per the Para 7 (g) of
the II interim Settlement dated 06.12.2023,
the Applicant has produced the copy of the
withdrawal
Application
in
Case
No.426/2022 filed under Section 12 (1) (a)
of the Hindu Marriage Act. The certified
copy of the same is being annexed to this
settlement agreement for kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court.

(g) That in compliance of the
Para 17 of the mutual divorce petition, the
husband has prepared an affidavit and
handed over the certified copy of the same
to the O.P. No.2-wife and she has
acknowledged the receipt of the same.

(h) That it has also been agreed
between the parties that all civil and
criminal cases, if any, filed by them against
each other regarding present matrimonial
dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties
concerned by taking appropriate steps
before the Court/authority concerned.

(i) That the parties will not file
any fresh case against each other in respect
of this matrimonial dispute. They have no
claim against each other in future also.

(j) That it has been agreed
between the parties that they shall not
violate the terms and conditions of this
settlement otherwise the aggrieved party
will be free to take legal recourse.

8. By signing this Agreement the
parties hereto state that the Application U/S
482 No.24039 of 2023 and all disputes and
differences in this regard have been
amicably settled by the parties hereto
through
the
process
of
Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Finally, the learned Single
Judge taking note of the above settlement
agreement had allowed the aforesaid
application U/S 482 No.24039 of 2023 on
31.01.2024,
and
quashed
the
entire
proceedings relating to the aforementioned
case. Order dated 31.01.2024 is reproduced
herein below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material on record.

The present application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed for quashing the
charge sheet dated 12.03.2022 in case
crime no.126 of 2022 (State vs. Sai
Nageswar Satchidanand) under section
498A, 323, 504 IPC Section 3/4 D.P. Act,
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
927
P.S. Mahila Thana, District Firozabad
pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Firozabad.

Vide order dated 07.07.2023 the
matter was referred for mediation. The
report has submitted by the Mediation
Centre. Parties have settled the matter in
mediation vide settlement agreement dated
03.01.2024 which is annexed with the
report of mediation centre. The applicant
and opposite party no.2 are husband and
wife and the dispute between them is
matrimonial in nature. Parties have agreed
to withdraw all civil and criminal cases
filed against each other. Both the parties are
agreed that in terms of the compromise the
proceeding of case be terminated and the
entire proceedings be quashed.

Matter is related to matrimonial
dispute and both the parties have entered
into amicable settlement. The fact of
compromise has been confirmed and
admitted by learned counsels for the
parties.

A three-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has
observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58)

"58. Where the High Court
quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between
the offender and the victim has been settled
although
the
offences
are
not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will
be an exercise in futility and justice in the
case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is
resorted; securing the ends of justice being
the ultimate guiding factor."

Where matters are also of civil
nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes,
etc. the Court may consider "special facts",
"special feature" and quash the criminal
proceeding
to
encourage
genuine
settlement of disputes between the parties.
[Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988)
1 SCC 692].

Keeping in mind the position of
law and facts, circumstances of the case,
the present application under Section 482
of the Code stands allowed.

The entire proceedings relating to
aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

The parties may file the copy of
this order before the court concerned within
two weeks from today."

7. In terms of the settlement
agreement dated 03.01.2024 both the
parties had approached to learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Firozabad for an
appropriate decree of divorce by mutual
consent and moved an application under
Section 13 (B) of the Act, 1955. As the
parties have already settled their previous
acrimonial relation initially in terms of the
interim agreement dated 19.10.2023, which
was followed by the second interim
settlement agreement dated 06.12.2023 and
these
two
interim
settlements
were
crystallized
into
a
final
settlement
agreement dated 03.01.2024.

7. In terms of the interim settlement
agreement arrived at between the parties
dated 19.10.2023, the petitioner agreed to
pay total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the
informant towards full and final settlement
of all her claims qua maintenance, out of
which a demand draft bearing No.504055
dated 16.10.2023 for Rs.10,10,000/- drawn
on ICICI Bank in favour of informant, was
produced by the petitioner on 19.10.2023
and the same was kept on the file of the
Mediation Centre. The said demand draft
was to be handed over to the informant at
the time of final settlement agreement on
03.01.2024
and
the
remaining
Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid to the
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant before learned Court concerned
at the time of final decree of dissolution of
marriage. It was also agreed that all the
pending matters between the parties would
be withdrawn. The informant had also
given an undertaking not to pursue the
matter against the petitioner and made a
statement to that effect to the concerned
investigating officer in the instant FIR
dated 18.05.2023. However, the informant
reserved her right to pursue the FIR against
other accused persons. Two other pending
matters i.e. one under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
and the other under Section 12 of the Act,
1955, shall be withdrawn. It was also
agreed that the petitioner shall publish a
clarification article in English newspaper
'Times of India' and Hindi newspapers
'Dainik Jagran' and 'Amar Ujala'.

8. During the course of mediation, the
petitioner had also given an affidavit that
he had nothing to do with the defamatory
statements
published
in
media/social
platforms against the informant and the
informant had also reserved her right to
take action against the persons, who are
responsible
for
making/publishing
defamatory
statements
against
the
informant. The petitioner had also given an
affidavit that he had never asked his ExAdvocate namely Amit Garg, who is
accused in the instant FIR, to make any
statements in media and the same were his
own statements. He was not authorised by
the petitioner, and the informant was also at
liberty to take suitable action against Amit
Garg.

9. It also appears that later on, the
petitioner had withdrawn complaint case
No.22703 of 2023 under Sections 420, 504,
344, 323, 386 IPC, emanating from protest
petition filed by the petitioner against the
final report forwarded by the investigating
officer in Case Crime No.0136 of 2022.
The petitioner and the informant had
mutually agreed that the terms and
conditions
recorded
in
the
interim
agreements dated 19.10.2023, 06.12.2023
and final agreement dated 03.01.2024 are
binding and there shall remain no dispute,
difference, litigation, claim or counter
claim (s) whatsoever, whether tangible or
intangible of any nature between the
petitioner and the informant. They shall
take necessary steps and actions to
implement
the
settlement
arrived
at
between the parties. Accordingly, both the
parties agreed to appear before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad
on the date fixed to make their statements
in support of the petitions under Sections
13 B (1) and 13-B (2) of the Act, 1955 in
person.

10. Both the parties agreed that after
the dissolution of the marriage, they shall
not interfere in the personal matters of the
other party including marriage, property
etc. and they shall not make any
defamatory statement against each other
and their family members in future. They
further agreed that they shall not try to have
any sort of communication with each other
in future. In case any party withdraws
his/her consent from giving divorce by way
of mutual consent or backs out from any of
the terms mentioned in the interim
agreement dated 19.10.2023 or in the
present second motion petition, in such an
eventuality, the aggrieved party shall not
only be free to initiate proceedings under
criminal and civil law but shall also be
entitled to file claim for damages against
the breaching party apart from reviving the
cases from the state where they were at the
time of signing the said agreement dated
19.10.2023. Both the parties agreed and
undertake that they shall not send any e-
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
929
mails/text messages/post or any other
manner of communication to the past,
present and future employers or employees
or friends, family/acquaintances of the
other party.

11. In this backdrop, the instant writ
petition was entertained on 30.09.2024 and
the Division Bench had accorded an
interim relief to the petitioner with detailed
observations. For ready reference, the same
is reproduced herein under:-

"1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Singh
(Bohra), learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Satendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for
the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has
been preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned first information report dated
18.05.2023, registered as Case Crime
No.358 of 2023, under Sections 501, 500,
384, 188, 171-F I.P.C. and 67 I.T. Act,
2008, Police Station - Firozabad, District -
Firozabad, and for a direction to the
respondents to submit the progress report
and further not to arrest the petitioners in
pursuance
of
the
impugned
first
information report.

3. Pursuant to the order dated
11.09.2024,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit
annexing therewith certified copy of the
second motion petition filed under Section
13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Firozabad. It is pointed out that in an
application
filed
under
section
482
No.24039
of
2023
(Sai
Nageshwar
Sachidanand vs. State of U.P. and Another)
the matter was referred to Mediation Centre
vide order dated 07.07.2023 wherein a
settlement agreement dated 03.01.2024 had
taken place. It is pointed out that pursuant
thereto a Divorce Petition filed under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
being HMA Petition No.1088 of 2023 (Sri
Sai Nageswar Satchidanand vs. Smt.
Ujjawala Gupta) was also allowed vide
judgement and decree dated 31.05.2024. It
was next pointed out that in the second
motion in the aforesaid proceedings, it was
clearly mentioned that the proceedings of
the present impugned F.I.R. shall also be
withdrawn. The term of settlement before
the Mediation Centre were also noted in the
second motion. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the informant
may not come forward to contest the
present case. Submission, therefore, is that
the present criminal prosecution is liable to
be set aside.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Issue notice to the respondent
no.4 through C.J.M., Firozabad. Steps be
taken within a week.

6. Put up this case as fresh on
24.10.2024.

7. Till the next date of listing,
investigation pursuant to the aforesaid
impugned first information report shall
remain stayed.

8. In the meantime, learned
counsel for the parties may exchange their
respective affidavits."

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER

12. Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the petitioner is
working as a Computer Engineer in
Microsoft
Co.,
Bangalore.
As
per
prosecution story, the informant was
contesting the election for the post of
Mayor
in
District
Firozabad
as
an
independent candidate. During the election,
a video clip was received by Whatsapp on
23.04.2023, wherein it was shown that Mr.
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Amit Garg (Ex-Advocate of the petitioner)
threatened the informant by narrating that
during his meeting with her husband she
allegedly received handsome amount for
settling the matrimonial matter between the
informant
and
the
petitioner,
which
maligned the image of the informant in
public. He submitted that the informant had
instituted various matrimonial proceedings
against the petitioner and other family
members including the impugned FIR
dated 18.05.2023 but later on, the matter
was referred to the Mediation Centre by
learned Single Judge of this Court vide an
order
dated
07.07.2023
passed
in
Application U/S 482 No.24039 of 2023,
wherein the settlement agreement entered
into between the petitioner and the
informant on 03.01.2024 and specially, in
the light of the earlier interim settlement
agreements
dated
19.10.2023
and
06.12.2023 the petitioner had produced a
demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/- dated
16.10.2023 and the same was handed over
to the informant on 03.01.2024. The
informant had also acknowledged the same
and
the
remaining
amount
of
Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid to her at the
time of final judgement and decree in
H.M.A. Petition No.1088 of 2023.

13. Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior
Advocate placed reliance on Para 7 (h) of
the settlement agreement dated 03.01.2024,
wherein both the parties agreed that "all
civil and criminal cases, if any, filed by
them against each other regarding present
matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by
the parties concerned by taking appropriate
steps before the Court/authority concerned".
Even
while
passing
the
order
dated
31.01.2024 in Application U/S 482 No.24039
of 2023, learned Single Judge had considered
the settlement agreement dated 03.01.2024,
wherein the parties have also agreed to
withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed
against each other and both the parties agreed
that in terms of the compromise the
proceeding of the Case Crime No.126 of
2022 be terminated and the entire proceeding
be quashed.

14. It was further submitted by learned
Senior Counsel that only in this backdrop, the
application U/S 482 was allowed on
31.1.2024,
which
was
corrected
on
21.02.2024. Later on, the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), F.T.C./A.C.J.M. Firozabad vide
order dated 12.03.2024 had also closed the
proceeding of Case No.16993 of 2022 but in
both the proceedings, at no point of time any
such objections were taken. Now, at this stage
the informant cannot resile from the earlier
undertaking given at the time of mediation
proceedings and it was the sole reason for
passing the judgement and decree dated
31.05.2024 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Firozabad in H.M.P.No. 1088
of 2023. The relevant portion of the judgment
and decree dated 31.05.2024 is reproduced
herein below:-

"याधचनी ने अपने सशपथ ियान में कथन धकया है धक
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहािाद के आदेश धदनााँक 03-012024 को मीधडएशन सेन्र्ि में हुए समझौते के अन साि मैनें आांधशक
रूप से दस लाख रूपये प्राप्त कि धलये है एवां शेष म व- दस लाख रूपये
धनर्टय के समय प्राप्त करूांगी। स्त्रीिन सािा प्राप्त कि धलया है।

धनर्टय के पूवट याची सांख्या-1 द्वािा याची सांख्या-2 को
डी०डी०सांख्या-585714 की मूल प्रधत प्रदान की गई धजसकी छाया
प्रधत पत्रावली पि सांलग्न की गयी। याची सांख्या-2 ने डी०डी० प्राधप्त के
हस्ताक्षि आदेश पत्र पि धकये।

अतः ऐसी धस्थधत में पक्षों को स नने एवां उनके मध्य
स लह की सम्र्ावना न होने की धस्थधत को दृधष्टगत िखते हुए पक्षकािों
की ओि से दाधखल प्रस्त त याधचका अन्तगटत िािा-13(िी) धहन्दू
धववाह अधिधनयम स्वीकाि धकये जाने योग्य है।"

15. He lastly submitted that at the
time of final decree, the informant has
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
931
received the remaining Rs.10,00,000/- and
the marriage was also annulled. The
impugned proceeding is a misuse of
process. Even on merit, the FIR does not
reflect that there is any complicity of the
petitioner and even for the sake of
argument, if earlier Advocate has made any
comment on the social media, it cannot be
presumed that the same was on the dictate
of the petitioner or on his behest. No such
presumption can be drawn against the
petitioner and the informant cannot drag
the petitioner in the impugned proceeding.
In case the same continues to proceed, the
same would be in teeth of the settlement
agreement arrived at between the parties in
the mediation proceeding and the same is
also in conflict of the judgement and decree
accorded by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Firozabad.

16. Making the above submissions,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner prayed to allow the writ petition
and quash and set aside the impugned FIR
in exercise of its extraordinary powers
under Section 226 of Constitution of India.

ARGUMENTS
OF
THE
INFORMANT

16. Per contra, the informant
appearing in person vehemently opposed
the writ petition. She submitted that as the
cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioner and the writ petition is devoid of
merit, the same is liable to be quashed. She
vehemently argued and tried to press the
Misc. Application moved under Section
379 of BNSS, 2023 on the ground that the
petitioner has intentionally made false
statement
with
dishonest
suppression,
twisting and concealment of material facts
in the writ petition and made false
statement on affidavit. The petitioner had
deliberately tried to mislead the Court and
got an interim order in his favour with
dishonest
intent.
She
submitted
that
Hon'ble Court may direct for lodging a
complaint in terms of Section 215 of
BNSS, 2023 read with Section 379 of
BNSS, 2023 against the petitioner and his
counsel before learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction.

17. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

18. In the instant case, undisputed
position which emerges out is that the
marriage between the petitioner and the
informant was solemnized on 29.06.2020
and with the said wedlock, no child was
born. There was no cohabitation between
the petitioner and the informant since
20.07.2021 and since then, they are living
separately. Both the parties filed several
cases against each other and during the
pendency of these cases, the petitioner
preferred an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing the
FIR, which was registered as Case Crime
No.126 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323,
504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Learned
Single
Judge
vide
an
order
dated
07.07.2023
referred
the
matter
for
mediation and by way of the interim
agreement dated 19.10.2023, both the
parties had approached the Court concerned
for dissolution of their marriage by a decree
of divorce by mutual consent by filing the
petitions under Section 13-B (1) and 13-B
(2) of the Act, 1955. The said interim
settlement agreement dated 19.10.2023 was
followed by a second interim settlement
agreement dated 06.12.2023 and these two
settlements were crystallized into a final
settlement agreement dated 03.01.2024.
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. In terms of the settlement arrived
at between the parties, the petitioner had
agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
to the informant towards full and final
settlement of all her claims. The petitioner
furnished a demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/-
at the time of signing and execution of the
agreement dated 19.10.2023 and the same
was handed over to the informant at the
time of the final settlement agreement
dated 03.01.2024. The remaining sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the informant at
the time of final judgement before the
Court concerned. All the pending matters
between the parties were withdrawn. The
informant had undertaken not to pursue the
matter against the petitioner. However, she
had reserved her right to pursue the FIR
against other accused persons. Both the
parties had mutually agreed that the terms
recorded
in
the
agreements
dated
19.10.2023, 06.12.2023 and 03.01.2024 are
binding and there shall remain no dispute,
difference, litigation, claim or counter
claim (s) whatsoever, whether tangible or
intangible of any nature between them and
they shall take necessary steps and actions
to implement the settlement arrived at
between the parties by way of the
agreement dated 19.10.2023 in its true,
sincere earnest & letter and spirit.

20. Admittedly, the agreement was
signed on 19.10.2023 and much prior to it,
the
impugned
FIR
was
lodged
on
18.05.2023. They have jointly moved the
First Motion Petition under Section 13-B
(1) of the Act, 1955 as amended by the
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 in
the Court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Courts, Firozabad and sworn the
affidavit for dissolution of their marriage
by a decree of divorce by mutual consent
under the provisions of Section 13 (B) (1)
of the Act, 1955, as amended upto date, in
the interest of justice. The aforesaid
petition was registered as H.M.A. Petition
No.1088 of 2023 in the matter of Mr. Sai
Nageswar Satchidanand (petitioner no.1)
and Mrs. Ujjwal Gupta (petitioner no.2).
On the date of filing the first motion
petition, the petition under Section 12 (1)
(a) of the Act, 1955 filed by the petitioner
being HMA No.426/2022 (Sai Nageshwar
Satchidanand vs. Ujjwal Gupta) was
pending adjudication before the Court of
learned
Additional
Principal
Judge-2,
Family Court, Firozabad. In the first
motion petition, they had agreed that they
shall not level any defamatory allegations
against each other in future and whatever
defamatory
allegations
or
statements,
which were made till the date of signing of
the agreement dated 19.10.2023, the same
shall
stand
withdrawn
unequivocally
without any undue influence, pressure or
coercion
since
their
disputes
and
differences in this regard have been
amicably settled by them.

21. After the first motion was
successfully completed, the second motion
petition was moved by the parties under
Section 13-B (2) of the Act, 1955, as
amended
by
the
Marriage
Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1976. Both the parties
have sworn the affidavit with a request to
the
Principal
Judge,
Family
Courts,
Firozabad for dissolution of the marriage
between the petitioner and the informant by
a decree of divorce by mutual consent
under the provisions of Section 13 (B) (2)
of the Act, 1955, as amended upto date in
the interest of justice. In para-5 of the
second motion petition they had disclosed
all the criminal proceedings including the
instant FIR and also acknowledged the full
and final settlement of all her claims qua
maintenance - past, present and future,
stridhan and alimony, marriage expenses.
4 All. Sai Nageswar Satchidanand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
933
The said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was to
be paid to the informant in the following
manner:-

"(a) An amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) has already been
paid by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner
No.2 at the time of signing and execution
of the Agreement dated 19.10.2023 by way
of DD No.504055 drawn on ICICI Bank in
the name of the petitioner No.2 which DD
had been kept on the file of the Mediation
Centre and was handed over to petitioner
No.2 at the time of the Final Settlement
Agreement dated 03.01.2024.

(b). An amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) shall be paid by
the petitioner no.1 to the petitioner no.2 by
way of Demand Draft/Pay Order in the
name of the petitioner No.2 at the time of
final judgment before the learned Court
concerned to whom the present petition
shall be assigned."

22. At the time of judgement and
decree dated 31.05.2024 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in
proceeding under Section 13 (B) of the Act,
1955, the remaining sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
had been received by the informant without
any protest. In para-10 of the second
motion petition the informant had made a
categorical averment to the following
effect:-

"10. That all the pending matters
between the parties have been withdrawn,
and the petitioner no.2 has undertaken not
to pursue the matter against the petitioner
no.1 and make a statement to that effect to
the concerned IO in the FIR No.0358/2023
PS Firozabad North U/ss. 171-F, 188, 384,
500, 501 IPC and S. 67 IT (Amendment)
Act, 2008 registered by the petitioner No.2
against petitioner No.1, however, petitioner
No.2 reserves right to pursue the FIR
against other respondents/accused. Only
two matters i.e. one under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.
and the other under Sec. 12, MHA are
pending which shall be withdrawn on the
next upcoming dates of hearing."

23. In view of the second motion
petition, it is not in dispute that even
though the instant impugned FIR is dated
18.05.2023 but in terms of the interim
settlement agreement dated 19.10.2023 the
parties have resolved the dispute.