Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DINESH ALIAS VINOD KUMAR AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

Where the parties have settled their grievances, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings under its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Complaint No. 427 of 2022) filed under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was referred to the Court’s Mediation Centre, where the parties amicably settled the dispute on 14 August 2025 and agreed to withdraw all pending cases. The State did not contest the existence of the settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal cases when parties have settled, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 and ordered the quashing of the summoning order and the criminal proceedings. The Court also directed the Family Court to expedite the pending marriage petition within 45 days. The application was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such proceedings.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • settlement
  • quash
  • Section 482
  • criminal proceedings
  • mediation
  • inherent powers
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • family court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41982 of 2024

Dinesh Alias Vinod Kumar And 6 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P.And Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Ajay Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   G.A., Raghvendra Singh

Court No. - 75
                       HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar
Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned
counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is
not present even in the revised list.

4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants- Dinesh@Vinod Kumar, Smt. Goma Devi, Mukesh Kumar,
Smt. Mamta Devi, Umesh Kumar, Mahesh Kumar, Guru Upadhyay, with
the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 427 of
2022, Niresh Devi vs. Dinesh @ Vinod Kumar and others, under Sections
498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Amanpur, District
Kasganj, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, as well as
summoning order dated 17.8.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj
with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case
during pendency of this application.

5. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide
order dated 08.5.2025, 24.1.2025 for making an effort between the parties
for settling their disputes amicably.

6. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 14.08.2025 the parties have
                                                       A482 No. 41982 of 2024
                               2


amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases
going on between them.

7. As per the office report dated 27.4.2026 a report from the Mediation
Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the
parties is successful.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that parties have settled the
dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court and therefore the impugned proceedings/charge sheet be quashed
on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.

9. 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, Kasganj as Marriage Petition No. 382/2025. 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 concerned.
He prayed that a direction for expeditious disposal of the same be given.

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

11. 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 14.08.2025 between the
parties subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein 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(छ) of the said mediation report.

12. 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
                                                                                        A482 No. 41982 of 2024
                                                                   3


                                    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.

                                    13. 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.

                                    14. The present application is allowed.

                                    15. The impugned summoning and proceedings of the aforesaid case are
                                    hereby quashed.

                                    16. However the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj 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.



                                                                                           (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Naresh




Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.