Allowed¶23

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025NA528/10201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings / charge-sheet in matrimonial-dispute case after mediation settlement; Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act; Application u/s 528 BNSS, Allahabad High Court, Vikram D. Chauhan J.; reliance on Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; settlement dated 12.08.2025 before Mediation Centre; abuse of process; application allowed on September 4, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Case Crime No.0024 of 2021 arising from charge-sheet no. 241 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021 (Sections 498-A, 323 IPC; Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly) were quashed. ¶23

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet no. 241 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021 arising out of Case Crime No.0024 of 2021 (under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act) and the consequential criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties dated 12.08.2025.

¶12

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and, the parties having entered into a settlement, there are no overbearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In view of the parties' settlement stand, there is practically no chance of recording conviction even if the case is put to trial, and the entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility.

¶19

Key takeaways

Given the nature of the dispute and that the disputants have settled and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings in question are quashed.ratio¶19
It would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceeding, and its continuation despite settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of process of law; to secure the ends of justice, the criminal case should be put to an end.ratio¶20
Since the parties do not want to pursue the case further and the matter stands mutually settled by agreement dated 12.08.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 10201 of 2025 (decided September 4, 2025): Quashing of charge-sheet no. 241 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021 arising out of Case Crime No.0024 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi. The dispute was matrimonial in origin; the parties had settled before the Mediation Centre of the Court on 12.08.2025 and did not wish to proceed; the State raised no objection. Holding that continued prosecution after settlement would be futile, contrary to the interest of justice, and tantamount to abuse of process of law, and relying on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court quashed the proceedings and allowed the application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10201 of 2025

¶3

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 76

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

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

¶12

This application has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet no. 241 of 2021, dated 22.09.2021, arising out of Case Crime No.0024 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Devraniya, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the settlement agreement has already been entered between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 12.08.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶14

Learned counsel AGA has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicant. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicant and the same may be quashed.

¶15

Learned AGA further states that the parties have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of this Court. 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.

¶16

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

¶17

NA528 No. 10201 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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 settled the dispute and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.

¶20

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 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.

¶21

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 settlement agreement dated 12.08.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶22

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.

¶23

The present application is, accordingly, allowed . September 4, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui

¶24

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu 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