Manmohan Pandey and 2 Other vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manmohan Pandey and 2 Other vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act (Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh), and the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh, quashed on the basis of the mutual compromise/settlement; Office directed to communicate the order to the trial court forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the compromise agreement of 19.10.2022 between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 (divorce having taken place by mutual agreement) and the absence of objection by the State and opposite party no.2, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, along with the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 rejecting the petitioners' Section 177/178 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction application, should be set aside/quashed under the inherent power in Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

Where the parties to criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute have mutually settled the matter by way of compromise and do not want to pursue the case further, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter; relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the Court holds that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to end such criminal proceedings where settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

Ratio / Principle

On that basis, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed: the entire Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, as well as the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh, are hereby quashed on the basis of the mutual compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties; the Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court forthwith.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 16 - Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. - APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 471 of 2024, decided October 13, 2025 (as printed). Applicants Manmohan Pandey and 2 Others sought setting aside/quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, and of the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 177/178 of Cr.P.C. regarding jurisdiction error. Counsel submitted that a compromise agreement was entered between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 on 19.10.2022, there being a matrimonial dispute in which divorce took place by mutual agreement; the learned A.G.A. and counsel for opposite party no.2 raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the Court held that inherent power may be exercised to end criminal proceedings where settlement has been reached, found no useful purpose in continuing, allowed the application, quashed the entire complaint proceedings and the impugned order on the basis of the mutual compromise/settlement, and directed the Office to communicate the order to the trial court forthwith.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 471 of 2024

Manmohan Pandey And 2 Other

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Salik Ram Tiwari, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi

Court No. - 16

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Shri Salik Ram, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside/ quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh as well as impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh thereby rejecting the application moved by the petitioners under Section 177/178 of Cr.P.C. regarding to jurisdiction error, as. contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition, in the interest of justice.

It has been submitted that a compromise agreement was entered between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 on 19.10.2022. There is matrimonial dispute. Due to mutual agreement divorce has also taken place.

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection in this regard.

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

A482 No. 471 of 2024

2

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 settlement is arrived at between the parties.

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter 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.

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and the entire Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh as well as impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh are hereby quashed, on the basis of mutual compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties.

Office is directed to communicate this order to trial court forthwith.

October 13, 2025 Muk

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench