Allowed¶17

Abhishek and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2025A482/3489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323/328 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act upon matrimonial settlement/compromise (dated 15.5.2024, verified 21.9.2024); Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers; abuse of process; no chance of conviction; Allahabad High Court; summoning order dated 20.12.2022, Saharanpur; reliance on Parbatbhai Aahir, Gian Singh, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 184/2021 (2864/2024) (Priyanka Versus Abhishek and others), Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur, including the impugned summoning order dated 20.12.2022 ¶17

Abhishek and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 184/2021 (2864/2024) under Sections 498-A, 323/328 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, together with the summoning order dated 20.12.2022, should be quashed in view of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶9

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties having settled, there are no overbearing circumstances requiring prosecution, the trial would be an exercise in futility, and quashing would serve the interest of justice.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise would be unfair, contrary to the interest of justice, and tantamount to abuse of process of law; it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶15

Key takeaways

In view of the well-settled principles 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 complaint case are quashed and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), Application U/S 482 No. - 3489 of 2025, decided October 30, 2025: Allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition and quashed the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 184/2021, (2864/2024) (Priyanka Versus Abhishek and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.1, Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.2, and Sections 498-A, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.3, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur, including the summoning order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (J.D)/FTC (Offence against Women), Saharanpur. The Court held the proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; the parties had compromised on 15.5.2024 (verified by the court on 21.9.2024), the learned AGA raised no objection, conviction was practically impossible, further trial would be an exercise in futility, and continuance despite settlement would amount to abuse of process. Reliance placed 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.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3489 of 2025

¶3

Abhishek And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 184/2021, (2864/2024) (Priyanka Versus Abhishek and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.1 and under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.2 and under Sections 498-A, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.3, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur including impugned summoning order dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D)/ FTC (Offence against Women), Saharanpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 15.5.2024 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 21.9.2024, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶11

Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that 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.

¶12

A482 No. 3489 of 2025

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 compromise dated 15.5.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶20

October 30, 2025 D. Tamang

¶21

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

Abhishek and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek and 2 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

Smt. Shanti Devi vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Mithlesh Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. and Another

Laki and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others