Allowed¶20

Raj Kumar Alias Rajeev Alias Pawan Mishra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Section 528 BNSS

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2025NA528/30132/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court allowed application under Section 528 BNSS quashing charge-sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings in a case under sections 420, 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC arising out of a matrimonial dispute; compromise dated 08.09.2025 between parties verified by court; no chance of conviction, trial futile, continuation abusive of process; quashing on the basis of Supreme Court precedents on settlement/compromise (Parbatbhai Aahir, Gian Singh, Laxmi Narayan).

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; order dated 04.04.2025, charge-sheet dated 04.06.2012, cognizance order dated 13.06.2012 and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1066 of 2012 quashed. ¶20

Raj Kumar Alias Rajeev Alias Pawan Mishra and 4… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1066 of 2012 (arising out of Case Crime No.1752 of 2011, sections 420, 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC) should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS in view of the compromise dated 08.09.2025 between the parties, the dispute being essentially matrimonial.

¶13

Court's answer

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

¶13

Ratio / Principle

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

¶16

Key takeaways

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of process of law, and to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.ratio¶17
Applying 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 the aforesaid case are quashed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings — Section 528 BNSS — applicants sought quashing of order dated 04.04.2025, charge-sheet dated 04.06.2012, cognizance order dated 13.06.2012 and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.1066 of 2012 (arising out of Case Crime No.1752 of 2011, sections 420, 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar) pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar — parties entered into compromise dated 08.09.2025, verified by the court concerned — dispute essentially matrimonial in nature — with the settlement there was practically no chance of conviction and trial would be an exercise in futility — continuation despite settlement would amount to abuse of process of law — 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, proceedings quashed — application allowed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30132 of 2025

¶3

Raj Kumar Alias Rajeev Alias Pawan Mishra And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6

State of U.P. and Another	.....O
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ravi Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 76

¶8

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶9

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

¶10

This application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the order dated 04.04.2025, charge-sheet dated 04.06.2012 and cognizance order dated 13.06.2012, as well as, entire Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1066 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.1752 of 2011 under sections 420, 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. of police station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 08.09.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 08.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

NA528 No. 30132 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 08.09.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

October 6, 2025 Gurpreet Singh

¶22

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar Alias Rajeev Alias Pawan Mishra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Alias Rajeev Alias Pawan Mishra and 4 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