Allowed¶10

Mohd. Shadab and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Others

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025CRLP/7794/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of F.I.R. on settlement/compromise between parties; matrimonial dispute under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow (case crime no. 163/2023); successful mediation before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, settlement agreement dated 20.1.2025; personal dispute, weak chances of conviction; reliance on Dimpey Gujral, Narendra Singh, Yogendra Yadav and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the F.I.R. in case crime no. 163/2023 (Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, police station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow); mediation report made part of the order. ¶10

Mohd. Shadab and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. in case crime no. 163/2023 (Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, police station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow) ought to be quashed in view of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶19

Court's answer

In view of the settlement/compromise between the petitioners and respondent nos. 4 and 5, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the referred judgments, the personal nature of the dispute not affecting society at large, the unwillingness of respondent nos. 4 and 5 to prosecute, and weak chances of conviction, the impugned F.I.R. in case crime no. 163/2023 (Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow) is quashed.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The instant writ petition is allowed and the mediation report shall form part of the order.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7794 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 10; Rajnish Kumar and Zafeer Ahmad, JJ.; decided November 13, 2025). Petition challenged the F.I.R. in case crime no. 163/2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, police station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow. During pendency, the parties settled their disputes before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Court; a settlement agreement dated 20.1.2025 was placed on record and respondent no. 5 resumed residence with petitioner no. 1. Relying on Dimpey Gujral (2013(11) SCC 497), Narendra Singh (2014(6) SCC 466), Yogendra Yadav (2014(9) SCC 653) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604), and finding the dispute personal, not affecting society at large, with respondent nos. 4 and 5 unwilling to prosecute and weak chances of conviction, the Court quashed the F.I.R., allowed the writ petition and directed that the mediation report form part of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7794 of 2024

¶3

Mohd. Shadab And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sachindra Mohd. Sham	Dwivedi, Kuldeep Kaur, i
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Mohd	. Usman Ghani Khan

¶9

Court No. - 10

¶10

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

¶11

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

¶12

This petition has been filed challenging the F.I.R. vide case crime no. 163/2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, police station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow.

¶13

In deference to the order dated 17.10.2025, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are present in person.

¶14

On a query put to them, they specifically stated that the matter has been settled before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and now the respondent no. 5 is residing with the petitioner no. 1.

¶15

The mediation proceedings have succeeded and the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties on 20.1.2025 which is placed on record. Various conditions have been drawn which requires strict adherence by the parties, failing which, the consequence is also provided in clause 6(M) of the settlement agreement.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties submits that the mediation between the parties has been completed and the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

¶17

CRLP No. 7794 of 2024

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, the proceedings arise out of F.I.R. vide case crime no. 163/2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, police station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow may be quashed as no fruitful purse will be served by keeping the same pending.

¶20

Learned counsel for the parties have also placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator; 2013(11) SCC 497, Narendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others; 2014(6) SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand; 2014(9) SCC 653 and State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 AIR 604 .

¶21

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments as well as in view of the settlement/compromise between petitioners and respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the fact that the dispute is a personal dispute, which is not going to effect in any manner the society at large and also that since the parties have entered into compromise and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 does not want to prosecute the petitioners, therefore, there are weak chances of conviction, the impugned F.I.R. lodged vide case crime no. 163/2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, police station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow is hereby quashed.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the mediation report shall be part of this order.

¶23

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶24

November 13, 2025 kanhaiya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shadab and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shadab and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Others

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

State of U.P. Vs Uttam Verma

Rinku Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Rinku Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

State of U.P. Vs Ram Prasad

Shyamu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl., Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Waqar Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others