Allowed

Prashant Singh @ Banti Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2025A482/23854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash a charge-sheet and proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act arising from a matrimonial dispute. Mediation succeeded; parties settled amicably and filed a mutual divorce petition. Relying on settled Supreme Court law on quashing upon settlement, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedin

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet and all further proceedings in Case Crime No.310/2022 quashed.

Prashant Singh @ Banti Singh and 2 Others vs State of Up… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45547

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23854 of 2024 Applicant :- Prashant Singh @ Banti Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra,Vikas Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dipendra Kumar Tripathi,G.A.,Govind Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dipendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Prashant Singh @ Banti Singh, Dinesh Singh and Mamta Singh with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the charge-sheet and entire further proceedings in pursuance of the said charge-sheet pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur vide Case Crime No.310/2022 u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jalalpur District Jaunpur and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.

¶8

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 13.8.2024 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably. The dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature.

¶9

As per the office report dated 19.2.2025, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.

¶10

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 22.11.2024, the parties have entered into an interim settlement dated 8.11.2024 and have amicably settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court concerned and the same is registered as Case No.1380 of 2024 and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶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 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. It is common ground between the parties that remaining amount as per Clause 7(d) of the said mediation report has been paid and there is no amount due to be paid between the parties. The parties have also agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7 (e) of the said mediation report.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel for the State have no objection to the said proposition.

¶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 as prayed for by the applicant(s).

¶15

The present application is allowed .

¶16

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as Charge Sheet in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶17

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Singh @ Banti Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Singh @ Banti Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Modanwal vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Anupam Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Rohit Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanzeem Kaif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another