Allowed

Rajan Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR on settlement of matrimonial dispute

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025CRLP/421/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing on out-of-court compromise/settlement in matrimonial discord; mediation and conciliation centre referral; settlement agreement dated 22.04.2025; husband and wife reconciled; FIR dated 06.11.2024, Case Crime No. 0050 of 2024; Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S.; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ayodhya; compromise permissible in certain cognizabl

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned FIR dated 06.11.2024 (Case Crime No. 0050 of 2024, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ayodhya)

Rajan Tiwari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 421 of 2025

¶3

Rajan Tiwari And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Singh, Aniket Srivastava : Counsel for Respondent(s) G.A., Amit Kumar Singh

¶9

Court No. - 30

¶10

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.3 even in the revised call.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioners, which was challenged before this Court by means of instant writ petition.

¶14

This Court vide order dated 12.02.2025 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to enable the parties to explore the possibility of resolving the dispute through mediation.

¶15

Pursuant to the said order, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of the Mediators, the dispute between the parties has amicably and genuinely been resolved and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶16

In this regard, a settlement agreement dated 22.04.2025 has also been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been filed with the instant writ petition and the same shall form part of

CRLP No. 421 of 2025

the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that pursuant to the said settlement agreement, the parties have restored their relationship and are now living together as husband and wife and are leading a happy married life.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in view of the said settlement agreement drawn between the parties and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them, the impugned FIR be quashed.

¶22

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶23

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the cases of:-

¶24

(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶25

(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677.

¶26

(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶27

(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶28

(v). Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶29

(vi) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641.

¶30

(vii) State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

¶31

(viii) K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695.

¶32

Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference

¶33

CRLP No. 421 of 2025

¶34

¶35

may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] , in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the present case.

¶37

Accordingly, the impugned FIR dated 06.11.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0050 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ayodhya, is quashed.

¶38

The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶39

November 26, 2025

¶40

Nadim

¶41

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajan Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Peer Bano and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Pallavi Pal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Satyam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Annu Alias Renu Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. of Civil Sec. Lko. and 5 Others

Durgesh Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others