Allowed

Raju Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2025A482/3030/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal case for dowry and cruelty offences. The parties settled their dispute and the compromise was verified by the Senior Registrar. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on inherent powers, the court quashed the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.611 of 2014 (Sheela vs. Raju and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Raju Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35726

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3030 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Yadav And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Waris Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Kant

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.611 of 2014 (Sheela vs. Raju and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 31.03.2023 and 08.05.2025 a direction was given to the Senior Registrar of this Court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned Senior Registrar of this Court had verified the contents of compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court vide report/order dated 16.05.2025.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court.

¶11

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the

¶12

settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶14

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.611 of 2014 (Sheela vs. Raju and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur are hereby quashed .

¶15

Office is directed to communicate this order to learned trial Court, forthwith.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.6.2025 Renu/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. 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

Similar cases

Kasim @ Munna Vs State of U.P. Thru Sec. Home Deptt.

Ranjit Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pintu @ Pinatu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Robin Gorge Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Shivam Pandey and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another