Allahabad High Court
ARVIND PATERIYA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and set aside the criminal proceedings, holding that the matter was a settled personal dispute and no longer warranted prosecution.
Summary
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge‑sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute, wherein the complainant alleged offences under Sections 498A, 494, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The dispute was between the applicant‑husband and his wife, with the applicants’ parents also involved, and the complainant later expressed no desire to pursue the case. The parties executed a compromise deed which was verified by the trial court on 1 September 2026. Both the complainant and the State’s counsel agreed that the matter was a personal, settled dispute and offered no objection to quashing the proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, the High Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and set aside the criminal proceedings. The application was therefore allowed, and the case was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal prosecution arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have reached a compromise and the complainant withdraws consent.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside the charge‑sheet and cognizance order in the absence of any evidential basis for the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 494, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- matrimonial dispute
- compromise deed
- IPC 498A
- domestic violence
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46950 of 2023
Arvind Pateriya And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Om Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, G.A., Sanjay
Kumar Dubey
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, counsel for the
opposite party no.2.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the
prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 5.6.2019 and cognizance order dated
13.8.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2224
of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2019, under Sections 498A,
494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi,
pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1
and the opposite party no. 2. The applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law and
applicant no.3 is the father-in-law of opposite party no.2;
(ii) the first information 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
A482 No. 46950 of 2023
2
had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship
and bruised egos;
(v) 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 18.8.2026 passed
by this Court, the parties appeared before the trial court, whereupon the
compromise was duly verified by the trial court vide order dated 1.9.2026.
Copy of the verification order has been sent to this Court by the court
concerned vide letter dated 2.9.2026.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that if the criminal
prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the
otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly
estranged couple and their families.
6. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 are
hereby set aside.
9. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 11, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…