Mahendra Kashyap and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113134

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24531 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahendra Kashyap And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Mukti Nath Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3, is taken on record.

¶7

1-A. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing /setting aside the charge-sheet No. 284/2023 dated 22.10.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 22.08.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.1257 of 2024 (State Vs. Mahendra Kashyap and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2023 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 20.12.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 22.4.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 25.4.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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 22.4.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 D. Tamang

¶18

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

Mahendra Kashyap and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kashyap and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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