# Yogesh Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 21647 of 2019
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogesh-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49030
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 & 406 -3⁄4 D. P. Act, 1961Quashing
of
criminal
proceedingmatrimonial dispute-compromise-In the
9 All. Yogesh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
Instant case, the compromised had been
entered into between the parties and the
proceedings were liable to be quashed but
prior
to
compromise
the
Court
had
granted ample opportunities to the parties
to settle their dispute-Initially applicant
was enlarged on bail, later on, mediation
took place and decided to live together,
after some time dispute arose again and
parties started living separately-Again
they entered into compromise, second
application u/s 482 was filed in which
mediation failed again-The Court granted
ample opportunity for six months and
again for three months, enabling them to
resolve their disputes-Ultimately the
efforts of the Court succeeded-The Court
considered it to be its societal duty to
make attempts to repair the strained
relations of husband and wife by way of
amicable settlement since the marriage
occupies
vital
role
to
play
in
the
society.(Para 1 to 12)

The application is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra) is concerned, the 1st
Appellant therein, was brother-in-law of
the deceased was working as a Cashier in
ICICI Bank, Khalilabad. On the date of
incident i.e. on 24.07.2018, he was on duty
and was residing at Khalilabad in view of
his employment in ICICI Bank and his
mother 2nd Appellant Shamima Bano alias
Sammi was also living with him at
Khalilabad. In that case, the occurrence had
taken place at Gorakhpur, in above
circumstances,
the
proceeding
against
brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the
complainant-respondent was quashed. The
facts and circumstances of this case are
different from that of aforesaid case,
therefore, the law laid down in Mirza Iqbal
@ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra) is not applicable in this
case.

10. In this case, the order of
cognizance was passed on the order-sheet
and not on the printed proforma, therefore,
there is no illegality in passing the
impugned order.

11. So far as the submission of the
counsel of applicants regarding lodging of
false and concocted first information report
is concerned, it can be adjudicated after
recording the evidence by trial court. At the
stage of proceeding under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court is to see whether perusal
of uncontroverted evidence recorded by
Investigating Officer during investigation
discloses any cognizable offence or not. At
this stage, Court cannot marshal the
evidence and adjudicate on the reliability of
the evidence. The court has to only see
whether
the
prima
facie
case
of
commission of cognizable offence is made
out or not in the light of law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in "R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 (SC) 866,
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl.
(3) 259 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors,
2020 SCC Online SC 850". In above
circumstances, the impugned order of
taking cognizance of offence on the basis
of charge-sheet, impugned charge-sheet
and the proceedings of lower court are not
liable to be quashed and the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
moved with mala fide intention to delay the
proceedings of the lower court.

12. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 372
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 21647 of
2019

Yogesh Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Sri Rama
Shankar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Bablu Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 & 406 -3⁄4 D. P. Act, 1961Quashing
of
criminal
proceedingmatrimonial dispute-compromise-In the
9 All. Yogesh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
Instant case, the compromised had been
entered into between the parties and the
proceedings were liable to be quashed but
prior
to
compromise
the
Court
had
granted ample opportunities to the parties
to settle their dispute-Initially applicant
was enlarged on bail, later on, mediation
took place and decided to live together,
after some time dispute arose again and
parties started living separately-Again
they entered into compromise, second
application u/s 482 was filed in which
mediation failed again-The Court granted
ample opportunity for six months and
again for three months, enabling them to
resolve their disputes-Ultimately the
efforts of the Court succeeded-The Court
considered it to be its societal duty to
make attempts to repair the strained
relations of husband and wife by way of
amicable settlement since the marriage
occupies
vital
role
to
play
in
the
society.(Para 1 to 12)

The application is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. Vs Babita
Raghuvanshi & ors. (2013) 4 ADJ 40

2. Smt. Manbhawati Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(2006) 55 ACC 509

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rama Shanker Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bablu
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2, Sri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava
and Si Adarsh Kumar Pandey, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material on record.

2. By means of the instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant is
challenging the proceedings of Case No.
4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh Pandey
and another) arising out of Case Crime No.
0159 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending
before learned VIIIth Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Ghaziabad.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
marriage of the applicant was solemnised
with the opposite party no.2 on 26.11.2015
according to Hindu rites and rituals but due
to matrimonial discord, the party started
living separately since 28.11.2016. Later
on, a first information report dated
27.04.2017 was lodged by the opposite
party no.2 in Case Crime No. 0159 of 2017
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406
I.P.C.
and
Section
3/4
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act, at Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Ghaziabad against the
applicant
and
one
Sudha
Pandey.
Thereafter, the matter was entrusted for
investigation,
which
culminated
in
submission of charge sheet against the
applicant and co-accused Sudha Pandey,
upon which cognizance was taken and case
was registered as Case No. 4912 of 2017
(State Vs. Yogesh Pandey and another).

4. Perusal of the record shows that
earlier Criminal Misc. (482) Application
No. 4996 of 2018 (Yogesh Pandey and
another Vs. State of U.P. and another) was
filed before this Court challenging the
chargesheet as well as the proceedings of
Case No. 4912 of 2017, which was
disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2018,
with the direction to the present applicant
to appear and surrender before the Court
below and apply for bail, pursuant to
which, the applicant appeared before the
Court below and was enlarged on bail.
Thereafter, mediation between the parties
was held at District Court at Ghaziabad in
which both the parties have agreed to live
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
together peacefully as husband and wife,
copy of compromise deed dated 12.11.2018
has been annexed as Annexure SCA-1 to
the short counter affidavit.

5. Present second Criminal Misc.
(482) Application has been filed for
quashing the proceedings of the Case No.
4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh Pandey
and another) on the basis of compromise
dated
12.11.2018.
Vide
order
dated
30.05.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had referred the matter before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court. Thereafter, mediation took place
between the parties before Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court, where the
parties had decided to re-unite and live
together as husband and wife and in this
regard interim settlement agreement dated
03.7.2019 was also executed and the matter
was fixed for 07.08.2019 but thereafter, the
dispute continued between the parties
ultimately the mediation between the
parties had failed as per report of the
incharge
Mediation
Centre
dated
16.10.2019.

6. When the case was listed on
19.01.2021, the counsel for the parties
argued
that
the
matter
has
been
compromised between the parties and
relying upon the statement of learned
counsel for the parties, the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court had referred the matter
to the trial Court to ascertain the veracity of
the compromise pursuant to which, the
parties appeared on 27.01.2021 before the
court below and the said compromise was
verified by the Court below vide order
dated 15.02.2021, copy of which is
annexed
as
Annexure-SA1
to
the
supplementary affidavit dated 14.03.2021.
Again the matter was listed on 05.10.2021,
on which date, the learned counsel for the
parties jointly submitted that the husband
and wife are willing to live together and the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 05.10.2021 had directed the applicant
Yogesh Pandey as well as opposite party
no.2 Smt. Mamta Dubey to remain present
before the Court fixing the matter for
10.11.2021.
It
appears
that
after
verification of compromise and prior to
05.10.2021, some dispute again arose
between the parties which was again settled
on account of which, the learned counsel
for the parties jointly made statement that
parties are willing to live together.
Considering the statement, co-ordinate
Bench of this Court directed the parties to
remain present on 10.11.2021. Thereafter,
the case was listed before this Court on
10.11.2021 on which date, the husband and
wife appeared before this Court and had
jointly stated that they want to live together
and have buried all their disputes but they
had stated that the matter may again be
placed on board after six months by that
time, the pending cases filed against each
other may be withdrawn, thus the Court
had directed the matter to be listed on
11.05.2022. The parties appeared before
this Court on 11.05.2022 on which date
again the husband and wife had sought
further three months' time to resolve all
their disputes. For the said reason, the case
was directed to be listed on 23.08.2022 in
Chambers.

7. Today when the case was taken up
in Chambers, the applicant-Yogesh Pandey
(husband) and opposite party no.2 Smt.
Mamta Devi (wife) are present before this
Court. Both the parties have stated that this
Court has granted plenty of time to resolve
their disputes due to which the parties got
ample opportunity to settle their differences
and they have understood each other and
now they have finally decided to live
9 All. Yogesh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
375
together. The statement of the husbandYogesh Pandey has been recorded in a
separate sheet, which is kept as a part of the
record, wherein it has been stated that out
of their mutual consent they have decided
to live together and will withdraw all the
pending cases filed by him against his wife
(opposite party). Furthermore, he has stated
that he will also pay Rs. 5000/- per month
through R.T.G.S. to the opposite party no.2
for a period of 12 years. On the other hand,
the statement of the opposite party no.2
(wife) has also been reduced in writing on a
plain sheet, which is also kept as a part of
the record. She stated that the matter has
been compromised between her and her
husband and she is living with her husband
since 16.11.2021, furthermore she will
withdraw all the cases filed by her against
the applicant and there is no dispute
between the parties.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena
of Judgements has held that it becomes the
duty of the Court in the matrimonial
matters to encourage genuine settlements of
the matrimonial disputes and in the case of
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs.
Babita Raghuvanshi and others, [2013 (4)
ADJ 40], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
again reiterated the findings as laid down in
the case of B.S. Joshi's case. Relevant
paragraphs 12 & 13 of the judgment are
reproduced herein below:-

"12) In our view, it is the duty of
the courts to encourage genuine settlements
of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when
the same are on considerable increase.
Even
if
the
offences
are
noncompoundable,
if
they
relate
to
matrimonial disputes and the court is
satisfied that the parties have settled the
same amicably and without any pressure,
we hold that for the purpose of securing
ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code
would not be a bar to the exercise of power
of quashing of FIR, complaint or the
subsequent criminal proceedings.

13) There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times. The
institution
of
marriage
occupies
an
important place and it has an important
role to play in the society. Therefore, every
effort should be made in the interest of the
individuals in order to enable them to settle
down in life and live peacefully. If the
parties ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law, in order to do complete
justice in the matrimonial matters, the
courts should be less hesitant in exercising
its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to
state that the power under Section 482
should be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection only when the court is
convinced, on the basis of material on
record, that allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed. We also make it clear that
exercise of such power would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case
and it has to be exercised in appropriate
cases in order to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which
alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the
courts to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of
the Code enables the High Court and
Article 142 of the Constitution enables this
Court to pass such orders."

9. In the matter of Smt. Manbhawati
Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported
in (2006)55 ACC 509, wherein initially
panchayat was convened but the attempt of
compromise failed but by the efflux of time
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties have entered into compromise and
thus this Court quashed the pending
proceedings on the basis of compromise
entered into between the parties.

10. Following the view that efforts
and encouragement should be made to
resolve controversy through mediation
especially in the matrimonial cases, in the
instant case, the Court has devoted too
much precious time and had granted
accommodation to the parties in order to
enable
them
to
reach
an
amicable
settlement of the dispute as all is well that
ends well.

11. In the instant case, the compromise
has been entered into between the parties
and the proceedings are liable to be quashed
but prior to compromise, this Court had
granted ample opportunities to the parties to
settle their dispute. Initially the applicant
was directed to appear before Court below
to apply for bail and was enlarged on bail,
later on, parties entered into compromise
and before the Mediation Centre at District
Ghaziabad, where they have decided to live
together as husband and wife but thereafter,
dispute again arose and both parties started
living separately. Again, they entered into
compromise, which gave rise to filing of
present second 482 Cr.P.C. petition in which
the co-ordinate Bench had referred the
matter before the mediation centre of this
Court, where the parties arrived at interim
settlement but that later on failed. Relying
on the statement of the parties that the
matter has been settled, a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court had sent the matter for
verification of the compromise, which
compromise was verified but it appears that
some misunderstanding again took place
between
the
parties
and
on
several
occasions,
this
Court
granted
accommodation to the parties, as per their
whims and fancies once for six months and
again for three months, enabling them to
resolve their disputes as the Court considers
it to be its societal duty to make attempts to
repair the strained relations of husband and
wife by way of amicable settlement since
the marriage occupies vital role to play in
the society. Ultimately, the efforts of the
Court succeeded and the differences as well
as plight between the husband and wife got
amicably settled in terms of the compromise
entered between the parties. The parties
appeared before the Court and have stated
that they are living happily and have no
grievance against each other. Furthermore,
the opposite party no.2 has stated that she
has no objection in case, the proceedings are
quashed by this Court.

12.

Accordingly,
the
instant
application is allowed. The proceedings of
Case No. 4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh
Pandey and another) arising out of Case
Crime No. 0159 of 2017 under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad
pending before learned VIIIth Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
District
Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 376
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 21995 of
2021

Pradeep Kumar Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties