Allowed¶17

Mahaveer Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2025NA528/8435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing criminal proceedings on compromise/settlement; S. 528 BNSS application; matrimonial dispute background; Sessions Trial No. 539 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahaveer and others); Case Crime No. 482 of 2012; Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.; P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr; Additional District Judge Court No. 1 Bulandshahr; abuse of process of law; ends of justice; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; order date 11.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 539 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahaveer and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 482 of 2012 quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties. ¶17

Mahaveer Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 539 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahaveer and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 482 of 2012 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise/settlement between the parties.

¶8

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties having entered into a settlement, there were no overbearing circumstances warranting prosecution, conviction was practically impossible, continued trial would be an exercise in futility, and quashing would serve the interest of justice.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would be contrary to the interest of justice and 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.

¶14

Key takeaways

Since the parties did not want to pursue the case further and the matter was mutually settled in view of the compromise dated 24.2.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.ratio¶15
In view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, the proceedings of the aforesaid Sessions Trial were quashed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), Order dated 11.8.2025 in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 8435 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:135637): Allowed the application by Mahaveer Singh and six others for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 539 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahaveer and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 482 of 2012 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr. The parties had entered into a compromise on 24.2.2025, verified by the court concerned on 23.4.2025; opposite party nos. 2 and 3 did not wish to proceed and the learned A.G.A. raised no objection, noting virtually no chance of conviction. Holding the proceedings to be essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, that continuation despite settlement would be an exercise in futility and tantamount to abuse of process, and acting on the principles laid down 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, the Court quashed the proceedings.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135637

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8435 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mahaveer Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyan Prakash Mishra,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

1-A. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.539 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahaveer and others) arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2012 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr on the basis of compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 24.2.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 23.4.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 24.2.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 D. Tamang

¶19

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

Mahaveer Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Singh and 6 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