Dipak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Dipak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; charge sheet dated 21.9.2023 in Case No.477 of 2024 and cognizance order dated 25.10.2023 passed by C.J.M., Bulandshahr quashed; criminal proceedings put to an end.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 21.9.2023 in Case No.477 of 2024 and the cognizance order dated 25.10.2023 passed by C.J.M., Bulandshahr, arising out of Case Crime No.0202 of 2023, should be quashed in view of the compromise and settlement entered into between the parties.

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; the parties having entered into a settlement, there were no overbearing circumstances warranting prosecution, there was practically no chance of conviction, and the entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility; it would be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings be quashed.

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 it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

Key takeaways

In view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir, Gian Singh and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed and the application is allowed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing — matrimonial dispute — compromise between parties — Application u/s 528 BNSS allowed; proceedings in Case No.477 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No.0202 of 2023, Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr), including charge sheet dated 21.9.2023 and cognizance order dated 25.10.2023 passed by C.J.M., Bulandshahr, quashed — parties had compromised on 12.7.2025 (verified 2.9.2025) and AGA raised no objection — continuance of prosecution after settlement would be an exercise in futility and tantamount to abuse of process of law — 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 applied. (Vikram D. Chauhan, J., 24 September 2025)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28944 of 2025

Dipak And 4 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home Lucknow And Another	U.P At .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pushpendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 76

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

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

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.9.2023 in Case No.477 of 2024, State Vs. Deepak and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0202 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr and cognizance order dated 25.10.2023 passed by C.J.M., Bulandshahr.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 12.7.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 2.9.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

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.

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

NA528 No. 28944 of 2025

2

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.

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.

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 12.7.2025 no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

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.

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

September 24, 2025 Bhaskar

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad