Allowed¶19

Arun Kumar Alias Deepu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025NA528/25186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise; Section 528 BNSS application; Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC; matrimonial dispute; Case Crime No. 215/2013, P.S. Ait, District Jalaun; Civil Judge (JD)(FTC) (CAW), Jalaun at Orai; compromise dated 02.07.2025 verified 21.08.2025; abuse of process of law; ends of justice; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; applicants Arun Kumar @ Deepu and 2 others; Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; decided 19 September 2025; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire prosecution of Case No. 2089/2013 (State of U.P. Vs Arun Kumar @ Deepu and others), Case Crime No. 215/2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun. ¶19

Arun Kumar Alias Deepu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire prosecution in Case No. 2089/2013 (Case Crime No. 215/2013) under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, ought to be quashed in view of the compromise dated 02.07.2025 between the parties.

¶8

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties having settled, there was practically no chance of conviction and the trial would be an exercise in futility, so quashing was in the interest of justice.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

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

¶16

Key takeaways

In view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir, Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of the aforesaid case were quashed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the entire prosecution in Case No. 2089/2013 (State of U.P. Vs Arun Kumar @ Deepu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 215/2013 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun, pending before the Civil Judge (JD)(FTC) (CAW), Jalaun at Orai. The dispute was matrimonial in nature; the parties had compromised on 02.07.2025 and the compromise was verified by the court concerned on 21.08.2025. Holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding despite the settlement would amount to abuse of process of law and that the trial would be an exercise in futility, the Court relied on the principles 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, and quashed the proceedings.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25186 of 2025

¶3

Arun Kumar Alias Deepu And 2 Others

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And Another.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: B.N.Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh : Prabhakar Singh, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 76

¶6

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This application has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution of Case No. 2089/2013 (State of U.P. Vs Arun Kumar @ Deepu and others), in Case Crime No. 215/2013, under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD)(FTC) (CAW), Jalaun at Orai, on the basis of compromise taken place between both parties on 02/07/2025.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 02.07.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 21.08.2025, 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

¶12

NA528 No. 25186 of 2025

¶13

¶14

proceedings.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 02.07.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶18

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.

¶19

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶20

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶21

September 19, 2025 S.Prakash

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Kumar Alias Deepu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Alias Deepu and 2 Others 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