Allahabad High Court
ABHISHEK AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The High Court held that where the parties have settled their grievances, the court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 12‑05‑2023 and the summons dated 14‑08‑2024 in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was referred to the Court’s Mediation Centre, where the parties reached an amicable settlement on 29‑07‑2025 and agreed to withdraw the pending criminal proceedings. The State had no objection to the settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their grievances, the High Court held that the case was suitable for exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482. Consequently, the application was allowed and the charge sheet and summons were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- settlement
- mediation
- domestic violence
- IPC 498-A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- court's inherent powers
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38864 of 2024
Abhishek And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Noor Muhammad, Yogesh Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sushil Kumar
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sushil Kumar,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned
counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the applicants Abhishek, Virendra Swaroop, Sheela Uttam,
Jaya Uttam and Manoj Verma, with the prayer to quash the charge
sheet dated 12.05.2023 as well as summoning order dated 14.08.2024 in
Case No. 438 of 2024, Case Crime No. 100/2023 (State Vs. Abhishek and
others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Jahanabad, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge
(J.D.)/FTC (Crime against Women), Fatehpur and with the further prayer
to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case, during the pendency of
present application.
4. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide
order dated 21.04.2025 for making an effort between the parties for
settling their disputes amicably.
5. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 29.07.2025 the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases
going on between them in view of interim settlement agreement dated
18.07.2025.
6. As per the office report dated 23.08.2025, a report from the Mediation
Centre of this Court is on record.
7. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears
A482 No. 38864 of 2024
2
that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken
up which ended in a settlement dated 29.07.2025 between the parties and
the Mediation succeeded. 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(f) of the said mediation report.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the entire
money has decided between the parties before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court as per settlement agreement dated
29.07.2025 has been paid by the applicant no.1/husband/Abhishek to the
opposite party no.2/wife/Priyanshi.
9. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.
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 as prayed for by the
applicant(s).
12. The present application is allowed.
13. The charge sheet dated 12.05.2023 as well as summoning order dated
14.08.2024 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 7, 2026
M. ARIF
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…