Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 30.1.2018 vide case Crime No. 0067 of 2018, Police Station-P.G.I., District-Lucknow, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Short counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 4 is taken on record.

3. As per the version of the prosecution the petitioner took Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite party No. 4 for the purpose of providing job of Driver in Saudi Arabia (Gulf Country) by swindling him and when the opposite party No. 4 went to the Gulf Country, he was provided work of a Labour instead of service of Driver and on account of non performance of work by the opposite party No. 4 as Labour the opposite party No. 4 was used to be assaulted with ‘Lathi’ and ‘Danda’. When the complainant i.e. opposite party No. 4 informed to the petitioner in this regard he was abused and demanded Rs. 90 thousand for calling him back. Even after payment of the said money the family members of the complainant were being harassed by the petitioner and he got Rs. 50,000/- spent from them. The family members of opposite party No. 4 visited the Foreign Minister of the Government of India in this regard and a letter was written by the Ministry to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, then the opposite party No. 4 was brought back to India from Saudi Arabia. It has further been alleged that the owner (Kapil) at Saudi Arabia has neither paid the salary, rather got his thumb impression on plain paper and snatched his mobile phone. The total amount of salary due is Rs. 60,000/- and the cost of Mobile is Rs. 17,000/-. After coming back from Gulf country the opposite party No. 4 tried to contact the petitioner, but he did not pick up the phone calls of the complainant i.e. opposite party No. 4. A written complaint of the incident was made by the wife of the complainant to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, who called a report from the Circle Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and took the cognizance of the aforesaid occurrence. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the FIR with a request to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,17,000/- to the opposite party No. 4 i.e. the complainant and also take action against the petitioner.

4. It seems that with the conciliation between the parties they have arrived at a consensus to settle the dispute and accordingly an agreement has also been prepared, which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

5. The terms of settlement agreement arrived at between the parties as set out in the settlement agreement, dated 4.5.2018 contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, are extracted hereinafter:

^^¼1½ ;g fd izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k ds fo:) ,d fdrk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 0067@2018 vUrxZr /kkjk 406@420 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds rgr Fkkuk ihŒthŒvkbZŒ y[kuÅ esa iathd`r djk;k FkkA

¼2½ ;g fd izFke i{k o f}rh; Ik{k us vkil esa fcuk fdlh tksj ncko ds lqyg le>kSrk dj fy;k gS ,oa izFke i{k] f}rh; Ik{k ds fo:) fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vkijkfèkd vfHk;kstu mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ckcr ugha pykuk pkgrk gS] D;ksafd izFke i{k dk tks Hkh osru cdk;k Fkk og vius ekfyd ls izkIr dj fy;k gS ,oa mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ cgdkos o ijs'kkuh ds dkj.k iathd`r djk;k FkkA

¼3½ ;g fd izFke i{k o f}rh; i{k ds e/; vc fdlh izdkj dk HksnHkko ugha gS ,oa nksuksa i{k eS=hiw.kZ rjhds ls jg jgs gSa vkSj u gh Hkfo"; esa dksbZ ,d nwljs ls izLrqr izdj.k dks ysdj f'kdk;r djsaxs] vkSj u gh mHk; i{kx.k ds e/; dksbZ nqjfHk laf/k gSA

¼4½ ;g fd bl lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks jn~n fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko';d gSA

¼5½ ;g fd mijksDr mHk; i{kx.k ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha gSA

¼6½ ;g fd izFke i{k mDRk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ckcr dksbZ Hkh lk{; ugha nsuk pkgrk gS vkSj u gh f}rh; i{k ds fo:) vkijkfèkd vfHk;kstu tkjh j[kuk pkgrk gSA

¼7½ ;g fd vkt fnukad 4-5-2018 dks mHk; i{kx.k us xokgksa ds le{k izLrqr lqygukek fcuk fdlh tksj ncko uktk;t ds nq:Lr gks'kksa gokl esa vius vius Hkfo"; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, jkth [kq'kh ls dj fy;k