Allahabad High Court
ABHISHEK BANSALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- TARUN SAXENAMUNIR
Holding
The FIR is quashed as the parties have reached a verified compromise, and continuation of investigation would be an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhishek Bansal, filed a writ petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 0125 of 2024, which alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The dispute was matrimonial, involving the petitioner (husband) and respondent No.4 (wife), and the parties executed a settlement agreement on 21‑05‑2025 which was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Prayagraj. The High Court examined whether the verified compromise barred further criminal investigation, noting that continuation would constitute an abuse of process and waste public resources. The State argued that it was not the primary initiator of the prosecution, as the matter stemmed from a private marital conflict. Concluding that the compromise was bona fide and the prosecution lacked public interest, the Court quashed the FIR. An entry in the police General Diary was ordered to record the quashment.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal FIR can be quashed on the basis of a verified settlement between the parties.
- Whether continuation of investigation after a bona fide compromise amounts to an abuse of process of criminal law.
- Whether the State can proceed with prosecution when the dispute is essentially matrimonial and not of public interest.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115, 351, 352, 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quashment of FIR
- settlement agreement
- abuse of process
- matrimonial dispute
- dowry law
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10898 of 2025
Abhishek Bansal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Chandra Tiwari, Bali Ram
Pandey, Kautilya Srivatsa, Priya
Saxena, Rakesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kunal Shah, Rajrshi Gupta
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chandra Tiwari along with Mr. Ghanshyam Yadav,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivansh Mishra, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Kunal Shah, learned Counsel for respondent no. 4
and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.
2. The petitioner has come up with a prayer seeking to quash the
impugned FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024, under
Sections 85, 115, 352, 351, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Air
Port, District - Prayagraj.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the dispute between parties is
matrimonial in nature where the sole petitioner is the husband and
respondent no. 4 is the wife. They have entered into a Settlement vide
Agreement dated 21.05.2025 annexed at page nos. 39 to 50 of the paper
book. By our order dated 27.04.2026 we sent this Settlement Agreement
to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj for verification,
together with ancillary directions.
CRLP No. 10898 of 2025
2
4. In compliance with the said order, we are in receipt of a report from the
Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj dated 07.05.2026. Enclosed
with the report is a photostat copy of a memo of identification of parties, a
photostat copy of the compromise dated 21.05.2026 and the order of the
Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate verifying the compromise dated
07.05.2026.
5. Now, that the parties have verified the Compromise and amongst the
various terms of the Settlement Agreement/Compromise there is a
covenant in the Compromise that the first party would withdraw all the
litigations against the second party. By the first party is meant, respondent
no. 4 Ms. Amrita Gupta and by the second party the petitioner, Abhishek
Bansal. There is a reference to a third and a fourth party as well, but that
is not of much relevance here.
6. In view of the compromise arrived at between parties, duly verified by
the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, we are of opinion that
permitting the investigation to continue in the impugned FIR, would be an
abuse of process of criminal law besides being a waste of public time and
resources . It would not lead to any fruitful result, because the fourth
respondent would not support the prosecution commenced on the basis of
the FIR.
7. We have asked Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA to disclose
the State's stand in the matter.
8. Mr. Tiwari, submits that the prosecution is one which stems from a
strife between the husband and wife where the State does not occupy the
role of the forerunner of the prosecution. In the circumstances, we are of
opinion that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
CRLP No. 10898 of 2025
3
9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned FIR,
giving rise to Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115, 352,
351, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Air Port, District -
Prayagraj, is hereby quashed.
10. An entry shall be caused to be made in the General Diary of Police
Station- Air Port, District - Prayagraj by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Prayagraj in red ink that proceedings of Case Crime No. 0125
of 2024, under Sections 85, 115, 352, 351, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
Police Station- Air Port, District Bareilly stand quashed under orders of
this Court.
11. Let this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Prayagraj and through him to the Commissioner of Police,
Prayagraj and the Station House Officer, Police Station- Air Port, District-
Prayagraj by the Registrar (Compliance).
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
May 14, 2026
Prashant D.
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…