Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30564 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20732 of 2023 Applicant :- Ajay And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Meenendra Tripathi,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Meenendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Ajay, Jauhariya and Smt. Kamla with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2023 passed in Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women) Jalaun at Orai as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2609 of 2020 (Smt. Parwati Vs. Ajay and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jalaun pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Jalaun at Orai and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application. 4. While placing annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 20.01.2025, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has deposited the remaining amount of money as per the clause 7(e) of the settlement agreement dated 02.06.2024 entered into between the parties before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and the reference of the said deposit also finds place in order dated 11.12.2024 of the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC (Crime Against Women), Orai at Jalaun. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that while placing supplementary affidavit dated 11.11.2024 submits that applicant no.1, namely, Ajay, who is husband of the opposite party no.2 has died on 05.06.2024, the copy of the death certificate has been placed before the Court, which is at page-7 of the supplementary affidavit. He submits that the petition in so far as the applicant no.1 is concerned be dismissed as not pressed. The prayer is allowed. 6. The present petition, thus survives for the applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Jauhariya and Smt. Kamla. 7. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 01.06.2023 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably. 8. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 02.06.2024, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them. 9. As per the office report dated 11.09.2024, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that parties have settled the dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the applicant no. 1(husband) and the opposite party no. 2(wife) have decided to part their ways, para- 7(a) and therefore the impugned proceedings/summoning order be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties. 11. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 02.06.2024 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded and they have decided to dissolve their marriage, para-7(a). The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7(f) of the said mediation report. 12. Learned State counsel could not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties which is on record. 13. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed. 14. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings/summoning order as prayed for by the applicants. 15. The present application is allowed. 16. The impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2023 and proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the applicants were directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre vide order dated 01.06.2023 and which was subsequently extended vide order dated 17.10.2023, but there is no order for disbursement of the said amount. In view of the same, it is provided that the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- as ordered to be deposited and appears to have been deposited before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 by the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of three weeks from today upon proper identification and as per rules. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Abhishek Sri. Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad