Allowed¶15

Mahipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2025NA528/17737/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application; matrimonial dispute; compromise dated 6.5.2025 verified 4.6.2025; FIR Case Crime No. 343 of 2010, Case No. 3413 of 2010, Sections 498-A 307 323 504 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Dhampur, Bijnor; cognizance/summoning order 14.07.2010 CJM Bijnor; abuse of process; settlement between parties; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; proceedings quashed; application allowed; Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan; 18.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3413 of 2010 (State Vs. Mahipal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2010 and of the cognizance/summoning order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. ¶15

Mahipal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3413 of 2010 (State Vs. Mahipal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2010, together with the cognizance/summoning order dated 14.07.2010, should be quashed in view of the compromise entered between the parties on 6.5.2025 and verified on 4.6.2025.

¶8

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; there are no over-bearing circumstances requiring prosecution of the applicants after the parties entered into a settlement, and given the parties' post-settlement stand there is practically no chance of conviction even if the case went to trial, so the entire trial would be an exercise in futility and quashing would be in the interest of justice.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would be unfair, contrary to the interest of justice, and tantamount to abuse of process of law; to secure the ends of justice the criminal case should be put to an end.

¶12

Key takeaways

Since the parties do not want to pursue the case any further and the matter has been mutually settled by the compromise dated 6.5.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.ratio¶13
In view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of Case No. 3413 of 2010 are quashed and the application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 17737 of 2025) filed by Mahipal Singh and another seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3413 of 2010 (State Vs. Mahipal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, and of the cognizance/summoning order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. The parties had entered a compromise on 6.5.2025, verified by the concerned court on 4.6.2025; the learned A.G.A. did not dispute the settlement and submitted there was virtually no chance of conviction. Holding the proceedings to be essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, with continued prosecution amounting to abuse of process and the trial an exercise in futility, and relying on the Apex Court principles in Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court quashed the proceedings. Order dated 18.8.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140399

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17737 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mahipal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Farid Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 3413 of 2010 (State Vs. Mahipal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 14.07.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 6.5.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 4.6.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶9

Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. 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.

¶10

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 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

¶11

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

¶12

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 and compromise 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.

¶13

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 compromise dated 6.5.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶14

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.

¶15

The present application under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 D. Tamang

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Singh and Another 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