Allowed¶10

Viplav Raj Darad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025NA528/41488/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 41488 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan J.; quashing of summoning order dated 21.06.2023; Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017; Smt. Mehar Anchal Chaurasiya; Section 498-A IPC; Section 323 IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act; P.S. Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar; matrimonial dispute; compromise dated 05.03.2025; verification order dated 15.09.2025; abuse of process; exercise in futility; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan; proceedings quashed; application allowed; October 28, 2025; NA528.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the summoning order dated 21.06.2023 together with the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017 (under Sections 498-A & 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act) ¶10

Viplav Raj Darad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the summoning order dated 21.06.2023 together with the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017 (under Sections 498-A & 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act)

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 21.06.2023 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017 (Sections 498-A & 323 IPC; Sections 3/4 D.P. Act) should be quashed in view of the compromise dated 05.03.2025 and its verification on 15.09.2025

¶2

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 recording conviction and putting the case to trial would be an exercise in futility.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceedings despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of the process of law; to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶7

Key takeaways

Since the parties mutually settled the matter in terms of the compromise dated 05.03.2025 and do not wish to pursue the case further, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter.ratio¶8
In view of the settled principles of law laid down by the 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 Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017 are hereby quashed.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vikram D. Chauhan, J., 28.10.2025) allows Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 41488 of 2025: the summoning order dated 21.06.2023 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017 (Smt. Mehar Anchal Chaurasiya v. Viplav Raj Darard and Others) under Sections 498-A & 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Collectorganj, District Kanpur Nagar, are quashed. The Court found the proceedings to be essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; the parties having compromised on 05.03.2025 (verified 15.09.2025), there was practically no chance of conviction, the trial would be an exercise in futility, and continuance would amount to abuse of process despite settlement. Reliance placed 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.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41488 of 2025

¶3

Viplav Raj Darad And Another

¶4

			.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Padmaker Shukla	Pandey,	Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 76

¶5

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.06.2023 along with entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2017 (Smt. Mehar Anchal Chaurasiya Vs. Viplav Raj Darard and Others), under Section 498-A & 323 IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Collectorganj, District Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 05.03.2025 along with the verification order dated 15.09.2025 between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 05.03.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 15.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

NA528 No. 41488 of 2025

¶12

¶13

virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 05.03.2025 , no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶17

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.

¶18

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶20

October 28, 2025 Nisha

¶21

Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Viplav Raj Darad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viplav Raj Darad 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

Similar cases

Vipul Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Deepti Varn Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bharat vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bilas vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawansut Automobiles India Private Limited and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another