Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23457 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 382 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Udai Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gajendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Udai Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Gajendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for private opposite parties. 2. By means of present revision u/s 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 484 of 2023 - Smt. Kalawati and Another Vs. Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center by means of order dated 18.04.2024 and that since the parties have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, which is evident from the report of Mediation Center dated 03.10.2024, the aforesaid order may be set aside in the light of settlement agreement dated 03.10.2024. The settlement agreement is available on record. 4. This Court has perused the settlement agreement dated 03.10.2024, which has been arrived at between the parties. Amongst other points, the main points of the settlement agreement dated 03.10.2024, are quoted herein below :- "A) That the parties have decided to live together happily and peacefully and to perform their matrimonial obligations with utmost respect, love and affection towards each other. B) That the First Party has agreed to take the Second Party and their son namely Sanjeev Yadav from the paternal house of the Second Party on 14.10.2024 to her matrimonial house. C)... D).... E).... F) ..... G) That the parties have agreed that the First Party/husband shall bear all the financial responsibilities of Second Party/wife and his son. H) .... I) That the parties have agreed that they shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2024 (Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) in terms of this Settlement Agreement. J) That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the cases filed against each other. The details of the Cases are mentioned hereunder : (i) Complaint Case No. 685/21/19 (Kalawati Vs. Ranjeet Kumar) U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Utraula, Balrampur. (ii) Criminal Case No. 484/2023 U/S 125(3) Cr.P.C. (Kalawati Vs. Ranjeet Kumar) pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur. K) The parties have agreed that apart from aforementioned cases, if any other criminal case(s) is pending between the parties or their family members with regard to the present dispute, both the parties shall get the same disposed off in terms of this Settlement Agreement. L) .... M) That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court, hence for contempt of the Court." 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the revisionist as well as opposite party no. 1 have settled the dispute and as such opposite party no. 1 does not want to litigate any further against the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has no objection in case the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case is set aside in the light of the settlement agreement dated 03.10.2024. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into settlement agreement and have settled their dispute amicably. 9. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can set aside the impugned order, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 10. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the revisionist and the private opposite parties and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the revisionist to be prosecuted any further, accordingly this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act is disposed of in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 03.10.2024. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench