Allahabad High Court

MOHIT KUMAR VASANEY AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the dispute was a settled matrimonial matter with no criminal intent, in line with the principles laid down in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court entertained an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Mohit Kumar Vasaney and four relatives seeking to quash a criminal complaint (No. 577 of 2017) filed by Neha Vashaney under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The dispute stemmed from a matrimonial disagreement, and the parties had subsequently resolved their differences, executed a compromise deed, and the complainant indicated no desire to pursue the case. The court noted that the matter was purely personal, lacking any criminal intent, and that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Relying on the Supreme Court precedents in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, the court held that the proceedings could be set aside. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal case against the applicants was quashed.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal complaint arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have settled the matter and there is no evidence of criminal intent.
Whether the existence of a compromise deed and the complainant's withdrawal of desire to prosecute justify setting aside the proceedings.
Whether the allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 D.P. Act constitute cognizable offences warranting continuation of trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
matrimonial dispute
compromise deed
domestic violence
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
settlement of criminal case

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19230 of 2018

Mohit Kumar Vasaney And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Narayan Gupta, Ravi Prakash
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajit Kumar, G.A., Mrityunjay Dwivedi

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Anup Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravi Prakash
Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel
for opposite party no.2 and Sri N. K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with
the prayer to quash the complaint No.577 of 2017 (Neha Vashaney Vs.
Mohit Kumar and Others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Sasnigate, District Aligarh, pending
in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.02, Aligarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-

(i) the dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between applicant no.1
and opposite party no.2. Applicant No. 2 is the paternal uncle, while
applicant No. 3 is the paternal aunt, respectively, of applicant No. 1.
Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are the brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law
(Jethani), respectively, of opposite Party No. 2.

(ii) the first information report came to be lodged by the opposite party
no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the
parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;

(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any
criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;

(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated
allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged
relationship and bruised egos;
A482 No. 19230 of 2018
2

(v) at present, the parties to the dispute, have resolved their differences
and have made peace;

(vi) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2
does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

4. It is further submitted that the parties have filed a compromise deed
before the court concerned. Pursuant to the order dated 09.04.2026 passed
by this Court, the parties appeared before the trial court, whereupon the
compromise was duly verified by order dated 18.04.2026. The copy of the
verification order dated 18.04.2026 has been sent to this Court by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.07, Aligarh along with her
letter dated 18.04.2026.

5. Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 dispute the
submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicants or the correctness
of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that the opposite party
no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are
quashed.

6. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal
nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between
the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in
allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.

7. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675
, as well as Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another, J.T., 2008 (9) SC 192, the proceedings of the aforesaid case, in
so far the applicants are concerned, are hereby set aside.

8. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 8, 2026
Abhishek

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…