Istekhar Ahamad Alias Bhaiya vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

Istekhar Ahamad Alias Bhaiya vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; the impugned order dated 8.7.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.576 of 2021 (Gausiya Bano Vs. Istekhar Ahamad @ Bhaiya and others) pending before the court below are quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 8.7.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.15, Prayagraj and the entire proceedings of Case No.576 of 2021 (under Section 12 of the D.V. Act) should be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the settlement between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of Case No.576 of 2021 are quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties' settlement there is practically no chance of recording conviction even if the matter is put to trial, and the entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility; it is in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings be quashed.

Key takeaways

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of process of law; to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; decided October 30, 2025) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Istekhar Ahamad alias Bhaiya seeking quashing of the order dated 8.7.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.15, Prayagraj in Case No.576 of 2021 (Gausiya Bano Vs. Istekhar Ahmad @ Bhaiya and others), instituted under Section 12 of the D.V. Act with an interim order under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (P.S. Bahariya, District Prayagraj), along with the entire proceedings of that case. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement on 17.9.2025 before the Mediation Centre of the High Court; opposite party no.2 did not wish to proceed with the criminal case and the learned AGA raised no objection, conceding virtually no chance of conviction. Holding the proceedings to be essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, that further trial would be an exercise in futility, and that continuation despite settlement and compromise would amount to abuse of process of law, the Court, relying on Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, quashed the proceedings of the case.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31094 of 2024

Versus Istekhar Ahamad Alias Bhaiya .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Tiwari, Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Virendra Kumar Maurya, G.A.

Court No. - 76

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 8.7.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.15, Prayagraj in Case No.576 of 2021 (Gausiya Bano Vs. Istekhar Ahmad @ Bhaiya and others), under Section 12 of D.V. Act, where interim order has been passed under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Bahariya, District Prayagraj as well as entire proceedings of Case No.576 of 2021 (Gausiya Bano Vs. Istekhar Ahamad @ Bhaiya and others) pending before learned court below.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the settlement agreement has already been entered between the parties on 17.9.2025 before the Mediation Centre of this Court and, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the

A482 No. 31094 of 2024

2

facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed.

Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement and he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.

Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.

It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the settlement agreement dated 17.9.2025, no useful purpose

A482 No. 31094 of 2024

3

would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed .

October 30, 2025

D. Tamang

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad