Satish Yadav and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Court concerned for the verification of the compromise executed between the parties.

¶13

As the time granted to the parties concerned is expired, a further four weeks' time is granted for the verification of the compromise. List this case on 27.10.2025.

¶14

In the meantime, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants."

¶15

On 4.11.2025, the following order was passed:

¶16

"1. Office report dated 3.11.2025 indicates that compromise verification report is still awaited.

¶17

2. Office to issue a reminder to file a report with respect to receipt of the compromise verification.

¶18

3. List this matter on 25.11.2025.

¶19

4. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

¶20

The report of the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi, dated 19.09.2025, has been filed pursuant to the order of this Court in which the compromise between the parties has been duly verified. The order dated 19.09.2025 passed on the order sheet in Complaint Case No.437 of 2019

¶21

A482 No. 10839 of 2024

¶22

2

¶23

(Rajendra Singh Yadav vs. Satish Yadav and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 452, 147, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chirgaon, District Jhansi, has also been annexed with the said report. The compromise has also been sent along with the report, as well as documents relating to the identification of the parties.

¶24

Sri Chandra Shekhar Garg for the applicant and Sri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi for the opposite party No.2, and Sri Surendra Singh, Learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶25

The Learned counsels for the parties submit that due to a petty matrimonial dispute, this complaint case came to be registered. Now the parties have amicably settled their dispute, and no quarrel remains. The parties have decided to part ways, and one of the terms of the compromise is also of seeking a divorce. In such circumstances, learned counsels for the parties state that pendency of the present case would hamper the future prospects of both the husband and wife and they would not be able to move on with their lives.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. also does not oppose the quashing of this case on the basis of the compromise.

¶27

As the dispute is matrimonial in nature and the parties have decided to part ways, no useful purpose would be served in keeping these proceedings pending. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of:-

¶28

(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶29

(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677.

¶30

(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶31

(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶32

(v). Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶33

wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given

¶34

A482 No. 10839 of 2024

¶35

3

¶36

by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] , in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and seeing that the compromise has been effected, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of this case.

¶38

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.437 of 2019 (Rajendra Singh Yadav vs. Satish Yadav & Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 452, 147, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chirgaon, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi, are hereby quashed.

¶39

The instant application stands allowed.

¶40

November 26, 2025 Kushal

¶41

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishwash Rao Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamji Verma vs State of Up and Another

Pradeep and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Krishna Shankar Awashthi vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravin Verma vs State of Up and 2 Others