Mayank vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:106399
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where criminal proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute, the court may, in its discretion, refer the matter to mediation rather than proceed with the quashing of the summoning order, on the condition that the applicant deposits a prescribed sum with the Mediation Centre; further proceedings shall remain in abeyance pending completion of mediation within a specified period, and if the deposit is not made within the prescribed time, any interim protection granted shall automatically stand vacated.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 19.03.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD), FTC/Judicial Magistrate (Crime against Women), Etawah in Complaint Case No.10565/2025 (Sushmita Vs. Manak and others), under Sections 85, 115(2) of BNS and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, pending in the court of Learned Civil Judge (JD), FTC/Judicial Magistrate (Crime against Women), Etawah.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits earlier, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre before district Etawah and parties were accorded to settle all dispute pending between them on the ground that the applicant shall pay Rs.15 lakh to the opposite party no. 2 wife. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the opposite party no. 2 has refused to accept the agreed amount of Rs.15 lakh and has demanded more money for the alimony. The present proceedings initiated against the applicant is malicious. However, there is chances of settlement between the parties, if the matter is referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
4. At present, prima facie, it does appear that the present criminal proceedings do arise out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Therefore, it further appears, if the parties were to be offered assistance of mediation, they may be able to resolve their differences and bring an end to all disputes and differences between them, amicably.
5. It is directed that applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which Rs. 45,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre on a date to be fixed by the mediation center. Balance Rs.5000/- shall be retained by the mediation center towards its expenses.
6. The matter is referred to the Mediation Centre with the direction that same may be tried to be resolved after giving notices to both the parties.
7. It is directed that Mediation Centre shall proceed in the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench.
8. Subject to the applicant depositing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as above, till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case shall be kept in abeyance.
9. After depositing the amount, aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties and in the case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
May 7, 2026
Meenu Singh
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free