Mohd. Abid and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43426

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6044 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Abid And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sukh Deo Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶8

This application under Section 482 has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.08.2024 alongwith consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No.760/2024(Afsana Bano versus Mohd. Abid & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.21, Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2, who are husband and wife, on account of which the F.I.R. was lodged, in pursuance of which the aforesaid case was registered. They have settled their dispute and now they are residing together and they have entered into compromise, which has been verified by the learned trial court in compliance of the order passed by this Court, therefore the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble

¶11

Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State; (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand; (2014) 9 SCC 653.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant and states that the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed in view of the compromise entered into between the parties as the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are residing together since 01.03.2025 and accordingly they have entered into compromise.

¶13

Learned AGA has also no objection to the request made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

F.I.R. under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by the respondent no.2 against the applicants, in which the charge sheet was filed. In pursuance thereof, cognizance was taken thereon and the applicants were summoned by means of the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.760/2024. The applicants had earlier approached this Court by means of Application under Section 482 No.1398/2025(Mohd. Abid and 2 others versus State of U.P. and Another) for quashing of the summoning order as well as the proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. Considering the same, this Court, by means of the order dated 27.05.2025, had directed the parties to file compromise before the concerned court with a direction to the concerned court to verify the compromise in presence of the parties and it was made open to the parties to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings alongwith certified copy of the report as well as compromise. In pursuance thereof, the

¶15

compromise dated 12.06.2025 was filed before the concerned court, which has been verified by the concerned court on 12.06.2025. The certified copy of the said compromise alongwith verification order has been placed on record of the application as Annexure No.5.

¶16

In view of above, it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. Thus in the light of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases o f Manoj Sharma Vs. State(supra), Narinder Singh

¶17

Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand(supra) , this Court in exercise of it's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶18

In the light of the fact that the settlement has been arrived at between the applicants and the private respondent and it does not affect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶19

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Akanksha Sri/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Abid and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abid and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Beenu @ Krishn Swaroop Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Mahfooj and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pradeep Raj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Juvenile B, Thru. His Natural Guardian/Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Gopi Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. and Ors.