Allahabad High Court
KARAN RATHORE AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- PADAM NARAIN MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and quashed the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of criminal proceedings arising from a charge sheet dated 23.03.2022 under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. The applicants had deposited Rs. 15,96,577 as directed by the court, part of which was released to the opposite party and the remainder held pending the outcome of a divorce petition. The divorce decree, passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, settled all disputes between the parties, indicating they no longer wished to pursue the case. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observation in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab that continuation of non‑compoundable offences may be futile when the dispute is settled, the High Court allowed the application. Consequently, the charge sheet and related summons were quashed, with a provision for the opposite party to file a recall application if aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences (Sections 498A and 323 IPC) can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the parties have settled their dispute through a divorce decree.
- Whether the settlement of civil disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act justifies termination of pending criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- Section 482
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- settlement of dispute
- Hindu Marriage Act
- divorce decree
- IPC 498A
- IPC 323
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11525 of 2023
Karan Rathore And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhupendra Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2,
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that under the direction of the
Court, applicant deposited Rs. 15,96,577/- before the Registrar General of this Court
in pursuance of order dated 14.03.2024 and 05.08.2024 in the Application u/s 482 No.
236 of 2024. Out of which 60% amount has been released in favour of opposite party
no. 2, by order dated 11.11.2024 in the Application u/s 482 No. 236 of 2024. He has
further submitted that 40% amount was deposited in the Nationalized Bank, which
was subject to the decision of divorce petition. The divorce decree has been passed by
competent court, Etawah, under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, which disclosed
that all dispute between the parties have been settled and the parties or not interested
further to prosecute the case.
3. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &
another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58)
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable,
it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will
be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
4. Keeping in mind the position of law, facts and circumstances of the case, the
present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed
A482 No. 11525 of 2023
2
5. The entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 23.03.2022, arising out of Case Crime
No. 390 of 2021 (State v. Karan Rathor and others), under Sections 498A, 323 IPC,
Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, as well as summoning order dated
22.04.2022, is hereby quashed.
6. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all,
opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he
may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
7. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned
within six weeks from today.
March 19, 2026
v.k. updh.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…