The court upheld the binding nature of mediated settlement agreements in family disputes, allowing the quashing of an FIR based on mutual consent and prior settlements between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vaibhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ujjwal Gupta, respondent no. 4 (informant), in person and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 18.05.2023 registered as Case Crime No.358 of 2023 under Sections 501, 500, 384, 188, 171-F IPC and Section 67 I.T. Act, 2008, Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order or +direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and give direction to the respondents to submit the progress report in Case Crime No.358 of 2023 under Sections 501, 500, 384, 188, 171- F, I.P.C. and 67 I.T. Act, 2008, Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad, which is pending against the petitioner.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No.358 of 2023 under Sections 501, 500, 384, 188, 171-F, I.P.C. and 67 I.T. Act, 2008, Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad.

iv. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

v. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.”

3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no.4 had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.Nil of 2025 under Section 379 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, BNSS, 2023 seeking direction to the Registrar of this Court to file a complaint against the petitioner and his counsel namely Dheeraj Singh Bohra in terms of Section 215 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 379 of BNSS, 2023 before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction for making false and misleading statements with dishonest suppression and concealment of material facts before this Court.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

4. A compendium of the controversy involved in the instant case is that the petitioner belongs to the State of Orissa. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 (informant) was solemnized on 29.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals and no child was born from the said wedlock. Since 20.07.2021 they were not able to live together as husband and wife due to their incompatibility of nature and temperamental differences. There was bleak chance and probability of their living together as husband and wife as their marital relation virtually came to an end w.e.f. 20.07.2021. Both have instituted multiple proceedings against each other, which are as follows:-

(i). The petitioner moved an application under Section 12 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Act, 1955 against the informant, which was registered asHMA No.426 of 2022 (Sai Nageswar Satchidanand vs. Ujjwal Gupta) seeking annulment of marriage and learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Firozabad had dismissed the same. However, the petitioner also agreed to withdraw it completely.

(ii). The informant had lodged a Criminal Case against the petitioner and his family members, which was registered as Case Crime No.126 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Firozabad. In the said matter, the charge sheet was forwarded to the competent court on 12.03.2022, which was challenged in Application U/S 482 No.24039 of 2023 (Sai Nageswar Satchidanand vs. State of UP and another). The matter was referred for mediation on 07.07.2023, wherein the parties have settled the matter vide settlement agreement dated 03.01.2024 and agreed to withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed against each other. Finally, after perusing the report of the Mediation Centre, learned Single Judge had allowed t