Allahabad High Court
SAGAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the criminal proceedings and quashed the charge‑sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute, wherein the complainant had filed FIRs alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties later entered into a compromise deed, which was verified by the trial court, and the complainant expressed no desire to pursue the case. Both the complainant and the State agreed that the matter was a personal dispute now settled and that continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose. 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 the proceedings should be set aside. Consequently, the application to quash the criminal case was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal prosecution arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the parties have reached a compromise.
- Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- quash of criminal proceedings
- matrimonial dispute
- compromise deed
- abuse of process
- dowry prohibition
- domestic violence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5307 of 2023
Sagar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashank Tripathi, Umesh Chandra
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Kumar Shukla, Adil Jamal,
Aklesh Kumar, G.A.
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 Mr. Adil Jamal, 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 No. 461 of 2021, dated 21.10.2021,
cognizance order dated 29.8.2022 and entire proceedings in Case No. 14459
of 2022 (State vs. Sagar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of
2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar.
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. 5307 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 24.8.2026 passed
by this Court, the parties appeared before the trial court, whereupon the
compromise was duly verified by the trial court vide order dated 3.9.2026.
Copy of the verification order has been sent to this Court by the court
concerned vide letter dated 8.9.2026.
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…