Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21770 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 39 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ram Het Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Ors Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Ajeya Mishra,Manoj Kumar Misra,Pooja Yadav,Ram Naresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Mohd Javed,Rizwanu,Rizwanul Haque Ansari Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Rizwanul Haque Ansari, learned counsel appearing for private opposite parties. 2. By means of present revision u/s 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the revisionist has challenged orders dated 02.01.2018 and 17.04.2017, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur in Crl. Misc. Case/Maintenance Case No. 1143 of 2017 and 821 of 2015 respectively, awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- in favour of private opposite parties, and prayer has been made to set aside the aforesaid orders in the light of settlement agreement dated 02.12.2024 arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court at Lucknow. Copy of the said settlement agreement alongwith report of Mediation Center is available on record. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that this Court by means of order dated 05.07.2024, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center of this Court. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation Center on the dates fixed and after certain deliberation between the parties they arrived at the settlement agreement dated 02.12.2024 and a report to this effect has been submitted by the Mediation Center of this Court for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case may be quashed in view of the settlement agreement dated 02.04.2024. 4. 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. 2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the present case against the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate have stated that they have no objection in case the impugned orders passed in the aforesaid case are set aside in the light of the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties at Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 8. 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 orders as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the revisionist and the private opposite parties and same does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the revisionist to be prosecuted in the said case, therefore the impugned orders dated 02.01.2018 and 17.04.2017 passed in the aforesaid case are set aside. 10. Accordingly this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is allowed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench