Arjun v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026A482/26693/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 26693 of 2013; Arjun vs State of U.P. and Another; Sanjiv Kumar, J.; quashing of criminal proceedings; Sections 363 and 366 IPC; kidnapping; Case Crime No.124 of 2012; Case No.117 of 2013; Police Station Nangal; District Bijnor; inherent powers; settlement between parties; matrimonial dispute; victim major; C.M.O. Bijnor medical examination; voter list age; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012 AIR SCW 5333; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 3 SCC 675; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; FIR quashed; proceedings quashed; decision dated March 19, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor quashed. ¶¶15

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor quashed.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun), arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor, should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent powers, given that the parties have settled the matrimonial dispute, the victim was a major, and opposite party no. 2 raises no objection.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice, as held by the Apex Court in Gian Singh, B.S. Joshi and Narinder Singh, and can be exercised to speed up the process of ending criminal proceedings where a settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

It was not disputed by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that the victim was a major at the time of the incident.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

Where the parties do not wish to pursue the case any further, the dispute being matrimonial in nature and there being no objection from opposite party no. 2, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.ratio¶¶14
The present application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor are quashed.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjiv Kumar, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 and quashed the entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun), arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor. The victim, daughter of opposite party no. 2, was a major at the time of the incident — a fact not disputed by opposite party no. 2 — and, per the applicant, the applicant and the victim, both majors, solemnized marriage, live as a married couple and have a child born of the wedlock, her majority being supported by C.M.O., Bijnor medical examination and voter-list age. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 AIR SCW 5333), B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 3 SCC 675) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the Court held that inherent power can be exercised to do real and substantial justice and to end criminal proceedings where a settlement is arrived at; the dispute being matrimonial in nature, the parties not wishing to pursue it, and no objection from opposite party no. 2, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26693 of 2013

¶3

Arjun

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Rajeev Sisodia : Amit Rana, Govt. Advocate

¶5

Court No. - 84

¶6

HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Prashant Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Rana, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted facts. In fact, the victim, i.e., the daughter of opposite party no. 2, was a major at the time of the incident and had gone with the applicant of her own free will. He further submits that both the applicant and the victim were major and have solemnized their marriage. They are now living a married life and one child has been born out of their wedlock. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. He next submits that opposite party no. 2, in his report, alleged that the victim was aged about 13 years, however, upon her medical examination conducted by the C.M.O., Bijnor, and as per her age recorded in the voter list, she was major at the time of the incident.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has not disputed that the victim was a major at the time of the incident.

¶11

A482 No. 26693 of 2013

¶12

¶13

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not wish to pursue the case any further, the dispute being matrimonial in nature and there being no objection from opposite party No.2, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and entire proceedings of Case No.117 of 2013 (State vs. Arjun) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2012, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor are hereby quashed.

¶16

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

¶17

March 19, 2026

¶18

Amit

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Brijesh Paswan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Imran and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Km Pinki Pandey Alias Sweta Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Devi and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Nishad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another