Allahabad High Court
ANUJ BHATT AND 3 ORSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as the parties had settled their dispute.
Summary
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 3753 of 2018) filed by the complainant under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506. They asserted that they were falsely implicated and that the dispute between applicant No.4 and the complainant had been amicably settled, with a Rs.10,00,000 settlement deposited with the trial court and a pending petition under Section 13‑B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant consented to the quashal. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of cases where parties have settled, held that the matter was fit for exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482. Consequently, the court ordered the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants to be quashed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 482
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13-B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- Section 482 CrPC
- settlement
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- Hindu Marriage Act
- compromise
- consent of complainant
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37784 of 2019
Anuj Bhatt And 3 Ors
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Srivastava, Raghuvansh Chandra,
Ram Jee Saxena, Satyam Narayan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Chandra, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2
and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as
summoning order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court No.4 Meerut in complaint Case No. 3753 of 2018, Anurag Kaushik Vs. Anuj
Bhatt and other u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S Partapur, District Meerut."
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
submits that marriage between applicant no.4 and one Parag Kaushik was
solemnized on 26.11.2017, according to Hindu rites and rituals. The opposite
party no.2 filed a complaint case bearing No. 3753 of 2018. Statement of
opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.p.C. and statements
of witnesses Kaval Singh and Shivani were recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. by order dated 16.07.2019. He further
submits that applicant no.4 and one Parag Kaushik have amicably settled
their dispute and filed Petition No. 2952 of 2025, under Section 13-B of
Hindu Marriage Act before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Meerut,
A482 No. 37784 of 2019
2
which is pending for disposal. Learned Counsel for the applicants further
submits that the parties have settled their dispute with Rs. 10,00,000/-. The
said amount is deposited with the Trial Court. Applicant no.4 will receive
the same after disposal of the said petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu
Marriage Act. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that as per
the agreement entered into between parties, the proceedings of this case may
kindly be quashed.
4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 supported the argument so
advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants and submits that he has
no objection if the impugned proceedings pending against the applicants is
quashed.
5. 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.
6. Upon perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on
the subject, this is a fit case for exercising powers of this Court to quash the
proceedings, as prayed for by the applicants.
7. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, insofar as the present to the
present applicants, are hereby quashed.
8. The present application is allowed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 23, 2026
Vijay
Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…