Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ SHARMA HUSBAND AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal complaint, holding that the compromise between the parties renders continuation of the proceedings futile.
Summary
The applicants, led by Pankaj Sharma, sought quash of a criminal complaint filed by his estranged wife, Smt. Nidhi Sharma, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties reached a settlement on 13‑12‑2016, wherein the husband paid Rs.13,00,000 to the wife and the civil suit (Case No.333 of 2015) and the divorce decree were also compromised and verified by the Family Court. The court examined the settlement documents and noted that the matrimonial dispute had been resolved amicably. Relying on the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of process, the judge held that continuing the criminal proceedings would be futile. Consequently, the application under Section 482 was allowed and the criminal complaint (Case No.8 of 2014) was quashed.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a mutual compromise between parties on pending criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act?
- Whether the High Court can quash such criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in view of the settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320(2), 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- matrimonial dispute
- settlement
- criminal proceeding quash
- Section 482 CrPC
- dowry harassment
- domestic violence
- compromise
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32955 of 2016
Pankaj Sharma Husband And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there was a matrimonial
dispute between the applicants and the respondent no.2 Smt. Nidhi
Sharma but a settlement has been reached between the parties on
13.12.2016, in which they have agreed to settle their disputes amicably. A
certified copy of which has been filed on record.
2. It was further submitted that in pursuance of that compromise, the
parties have settled their dispute, as such, proceedings of the instant
Criminal Case be also quashed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the
documents submitted on record.
4. From the documents submitted, it is apparent that on 13.12.2016, a
compromise has been reached between the complainant Nidhi Sharma
and the accused Pankaj Sharma, whereby an amount of Rs.13,00,000/-
was given by the accused to his estranged wife. It is further apparent that
in pursuance of that compromise, Case No.333 of 2015 (Smt. Nidhi
Sharma vs. Pankaj Sharma and others), under Section 406 I.P.C. has also
been compromised, vide order dated dated 26.09.2016 passed by the
A.C.J.M., Court No.6, Aligarh under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C.
5. It is further apparent that by order dated 10.09.2016 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, the compromise was verified
between the parties, according to which the wife accepted the exparte
A482 No. 32955 of 2016
2
decree of divorce dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Mathura granted in favour of the husband Pankaj Sharma in
Marriage Petition No.749 of 2013 (Pankaj Sharma vs. Smt. Nidhi
Sharma).
6. From the above facts, it is evident that a compromise has been reached
between the parties regarding the matrimonial disputes existing between
them, as such, it will be futile to keep the proceedings of instant case
pending, which is also a matrimonial dispute, under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act instituted on the complaint
of the estranged wife against husband and his relatives.
7. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed. Consequently, the proceedings of Complaint Case No.8 of 2014
(Smt. Nidhi Sharma vs. Pankaj Sharma and others), under Sections 498-
A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Delhi Gate,
District Aligarh and all incidental proceedings thereto, are hereby
quashed.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
May 12, 2026
Jitendra
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…