Abhishek Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10898 of 2025

Abhishek Bansal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Avinash Chandra Tiwari, Bali	Ram
	Pandey, Kautilya Srivatsa, Saxena, Rakesh Kumar Mishra	Priya
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Kunal Shah, Rajrshi Gupta

¶8

Court No. - 47

¶9

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chandra Tiwari along with Mr. Ghanshyam Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivansh Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kunal Shah, learned Counsel for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.

¶11

2. The petitioner has come up with a prayer seeking to quash the impugned FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115, 352, 351, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Air Port, District - Prayagraj.

¶12

3. The case of the petitioners is that the dispute between parties is matrimonial in nature where the sole petitioner is the husband and respondent no. 4 is the wife. They have entered into a Settlement vide Agreement dated 21.05.2025 annexed at page nos. 39 to 50 of the paper book. By our order dated 27.04.2026 we sent this Settlement Agreement to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj for verification, together with ancillary directions.

¶13

CRLP No. 10898 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

4. In compliance with the said order, we are in receipt of a report from the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj dated 07.05.2026. Enclosed with the report is a photostat copy of a memo of identification of parties, a photostat copy of the compromise dated 21.05.2026 and the order of the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate verifying the compromise dated 07.05.2026.

¶16

5. Now, that the parties have verified the Compromise and amongst the various terms of the Settlement Agreement/Compromise there is a covenant in the Compromise that the first party would withdraw all the litigations against the second party. By the first party is meant, respondent no. 4 Ms. Amrita Gupta and by the second party the petitioner, Abhishek Bansal. There is a reference to a third and a fourth party as well, but that is not of much relevance here.

¶17

6. In view of the compromise arrived at between parties, duly verified by the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, we are of opinion that permitting the investigation to continue in the impugned FIR, would be an abuse of process of criminal law besides being a waste of public time and resources . It would not lead to any fruitful result, because the fourth respondent would not support the prosecution commenced on the basis of the FIR.

¶18

7. We have asked Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA to disclose the State's stand in the matter.

¶19

8. Mr. Tiwari, submits that the prosecution is one which stems from a strife between the husband and wife where the State does not occupy the role of the forerunner of the prosecution. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶20

CRLP No. 10898 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned FIR, giving rise to Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115, 352, 351, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Air Port, District - Prayagraj, is hereby quashed .

¶23

10. An entry shall be caused to be made in the General Diary of Police Station- Air Port, District - Prayagraj by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj in red ink that proceedings of Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115, 352, 351, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Air Port, District Bareilly stand quashed under orders of this Court.

¶24

11. Let this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj and through him to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj and the Station House Officer, Police Station- Air Port, DistrictPrayagraj by the Registrar (Compliance) .

¶25

(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)

¶26

May 14, 2026 Prashant D.

¶27

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

Abhishek Bansal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Bansal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juber Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Meera Patel and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarwan and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs District Judge, District Bijnor and Another

Smt Simran and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others