Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4242 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 18 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Avinash Singh Vishen,Shishir Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nishant Pandey,Shhreiya Agarawal Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Order on Application IA/2/2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Heard Mr. Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent No.1 and Ms. Shhreiya Agarawal along with Mr. Nishant Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the present revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 18.05.2009 by which the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No.2 has been allowed however, after 14 years of the order, parties have entered into an amicable settlement by way of memorandum of understanding dated 11.09.2024 and submits that since the last cause of action accrued on 11.09.2024 and both parties want to settle the dispute therefore, the delay in filing the present revision may be condoned as it is neither deliberate nor intentional. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no objection if the delay is condoned. In view of above discussions made hereinabove, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. Order on petition Heard Mr. Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Ms. Shhreiya Agarawal along with Mr. Nishant Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This revision has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Kadipur, District Sultanpur in Application No.5/2007 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that last cause of action occurred seeking prayer for setting aside the impugned order out of settlement agreement/memorandum of understanding which has been entered into between the parties on 11.09.2024 (Annexure No.P2). It is next submitted that Clause 3 (iv) & (v) of the settlement agreement mentions the settlement regarding the two cases pending between the parties, the impugned order arising out of maintenance case i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No.5/2007 finds mention in Clause 3(v) of the agreement. So far as the divorce petition filed by the respondent No.2 against the revisionist is concerned, the same was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the Criminal Petition No.10917 of 2024 (Vishnu Tiwari vs. State of Telangana and another) whereby the Court has been pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.255/2011. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that before quashing the proceedings, the settlement agreement entered between the parties has been verified by the Telangana High Court thus, there is no requirement to verify it again. Lastly, the learned counsel for the revisionist prays that impugned proceedings may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts. They have submitted that respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- pursuant to the said agreement. The remaining Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid after the impugned proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quashed. Lastly, they have further submitted that they have no objection if the proceedings are quashed. Perused the record. On due consideration to the fact that the memorandum of understanding dated 11.09.2024 has been signed by the parties and the two criminal cases lodged by the respondent No.2 against the revisionist have been agreed to be settled on the conditions stipulated in that agreement which has been verified before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and both the parties have consented for quashing of this proceedings thus, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the present petition is allowed and the criminal proceeding (supra) is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench