Allowed¶9

Smt. Virma Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2025A482/2442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR-free complaint proceedings on verified compromise; matrimonial dispute between complainant Rahul Bharti (opposite party no. 2/husband) and applicant no. 4 (wife) and her family; IPC ss. 147, 406, 504; Police Station Cantt, District Bareilly; Judicial Magistrate-II Bareilly; summoning order quashed along with entire proceedings; applicants Smt. Virma Devi, Km. Preeti, Smt. Chandan, Jyoti Singh, Smt. Suraj; precedent relied upon: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296; A.G.A. no objection; Allahabad High Court, 2025:AHC:90661.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 525 of 2021, including the summoning order, quashed against applicants Smt. Virma Devi, Km. Preeti, Smt. Chandan, Jyoti Singh and Smt. Suraj; the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. ¶9

Smt. Virma Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 525 of 2021 (Sections 147, 406, 504 IPC), pending before Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties and verified by the trial court.

¶3

Court's answer

In appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise; in the instant case the dispute is matrimonial and private in nature, quashing on compromise would have no adverse impact on society, nothing indicates the parties have criminal antecedents, and the compromise has been verified by the trial court — hence, considering the law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (AIR 2019 SC 1296) and the facts, it is in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The entire impugned proceedings of the complaint case, including the summoning order, are quashed in respect of the applicants Smt. Virma Devi, Km. Preeti, Smt. Chandan, Jyoti Singh and Smt. Suraj.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal procedure – quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise (S. 482 Cr.P.C.) – matrimonial dispute – proceedings of Complaint Case No. 525 of 2021 (Ss. 147, 406, 504 IPC, PS Cantt, District Bareilly) pending before Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly, including the summoning order, quashed in their entirety against the five applicants on the basis of a compromise verified by the trial court, the dispute being private in nature with no adverse impact on society and no criminal antecedents of the parties; reliance placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296; application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (Allahabad High Court, Raj Beer Singh, J.; Order Date 27.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:90661.)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90661

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2442 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Virma Devi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Charan Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants, in Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 525 of 2021 (Rahul Bharti Vs. Smt. Virma Deviand Others), under Section - 147, 406, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Cantt, District - Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 4 is wife of opposite party no. 2/complainant and remaining applicants are family members of applicant no. 4 and the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the complainant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that the compromise filed by the parties before the Trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶11

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶12

It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the instant case, matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The compromise filed by the parties before the Trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, entire impugned proceedings, including summoning order of the aforesaid complaint case, against applicants, namely, Smt. Virma Devi, Km. Preeti, Smt. Chandan, Jyoti Singh and Smt. Suraj are hereby quashed.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 S Rawat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Virma Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Virma Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Manish Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Yarram Yanji Reddy vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Gangawar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sheela Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another