YOGENDRA KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12412 of 2024

Yogendra Kumar And 2 Others
                                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                              Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                             :    Rajesh Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                        :    Ajai Kumar Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 74
                          HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the
prayer clause during course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire criminal
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 18553/2022 (Manju Vs. Yogendra
Kumar and others), U/S 498A, 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C, and 3/4 D.P Act,
P.S-Bithur District -Kanpur Nagar as well as impugned summoning order
dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, No.1, Kanpur Nagar, Pending before the A.C.M.M Court No.1,
Kanpur Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that opposite party no.2
initiated two proceedings against the applicants; one by way of F.I.R. which
was registered as Case Crime No.123 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323,
506 I.P.C, and 3/4 D.P Act and second is present complaint. It is next
submitted that applicants challenged the proceedings in Case Crime No.123
of 2022 by filing Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.7922 of 2024
and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024
allowed the application of the applicants and quashed the proceedings. The
order dated 25.10.2024 is quoted below:

"1. Heard Sri Rajesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned
                                                                              A482 No. 12412 of 2024
                                              2


counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the

records.


2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Yogendra

Kumar and Vijay Kumar with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.

145725 of 2023 (State vs. Yogendra Kumar) as well as Charge sheet No. 134 of 2023 dated 13.05.2023

including Summoning order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Upper Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court

No. 1, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 123 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506

I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bithur, District Kanpur, pending in the Court of Upper Chief Judicial

Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar.


3. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 for making

an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.


4. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 25.08.2024, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and

further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.


5. As per the office report dated 17.10.2024, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record

which states that mediation between the parties is successful.


6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that parties have settled the dispute amicably before the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the applicant no. 1(husband) and the opposite party

no. 2(wife) have decided to dissolve their marriage and live separately and therefore the impugned

proceedings/summoning order/charge sheet be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived at between the

parties.


7. Learned counsel for the applicants states that a case under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act is

pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat as Marriage Petition No.904 of 2024.

Learned counsel assures that the applicants shall abide by all the terms and conditions of settlement

agreement arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre of this Court and shall fully co-

operate with expeditious disposal of the said case pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court

Kanpur Dehat. He prayed that a direction for expeditious disposal of the same be given.


8. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said

order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 25.08.2024 between the

parties and the Mediation succeeded and they have decided to dissolve their marriage and live separately.

The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties

have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7(e) of the

said mediation report.
                                                                                  A482 No. 12412 of 2024
                                              3


9. Learned State counsel could not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties which is on

record.


10. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is

well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another:

(2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3)

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10

SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai

Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641

has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.


11. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the

present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings/summoning order

as prayed for by the applicants.


12. The present application is allowed.


13. The impugned summoning order dated 13.10.2023, charge sheet as well as proceedings of the

aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicants depositing Rs.10,000/- before the concerned

trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district.


14. However the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar is directed to expedite the hearing of the

said case and decide the same within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. "


5. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicants and opposite party no.2
have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into
compromise. He further submitted opposite party No.2 does not want to
proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that
applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their
private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to
press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready
to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the
compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the
correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or
the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that
opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case
                                                                                            A482 No. 12412 of 2024
                                                                     4


                                    are quashed.

                                    7. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out
                                    of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

                                    8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs.
                                    State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai 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 Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC
                                    688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise
                                    can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and
                                    non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision
                                    given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
                                    [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court
                                    in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

                                    9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein
                                    above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this
                                    Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by
                                    prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

                                    10. Accordingly, the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 18553/2022 (Manju
                                    Vs. Yogendra Kumar and others), U/S 498A, 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C, and
                                    3/4 D.P Act, P.S-Bithur District -Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.

                                    11. This application is accordingly allowed.



                                                                                            (Deepak Verma,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Meenu Singh




Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad