Allahabad High Court
RAHUL YADAV AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The Court held that, in view of the settlement between the parties, the criminal proceedings could be quashed under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 659 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was referred to the Court’s Mediation Centre, where the parties reached an amicable settlement on 23 August 2025 and agreed to withdraw the pending cases. The State and the opposite party did not contest the existence of the settlement, and it was further noted that a related dispute under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act had already been decided by the Family Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings when parties have settled their grievances, the Court held that it could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Consequently, the application was allowed and the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and all further proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal case can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
- Whether the settlement effected through the Court’s Mediation Centre is sufficient to warrant quashing of the charge sheet and cognizance order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13B
Subjects
- settlement
- quash
- Section 482 CrPC
- mediation
- criminal proceedings
- Hindu Marriage Act
- IPC offences
- court's inherent powers
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7624 of 2025
Rahul Yadav And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Sunil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Uttam Singh
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Uttam Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri V.D. Ojha,
learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants Rahul Yadav, Omkar Yadav, Lilawati Devi, Sarvesh Yadav,
Priyanka Yadav, Vivekanand Yadav, with the prayer to quash the
impugned charge sheet no. 516 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 19.12.2024 as well as entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 659 of 2025, State vs. Rahul Yadav
and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 447 of 2024, u/s 498A, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur,
pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur with the
further prayer to stay the further proceedings of said case during
pendency of this application.
4. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide
order dated 30.4.2025 for making an effort between the parties for settling
their disputes amicably.
5. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 23.8.2025 the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases
going on between them.
NA528 No. 7624 of 2025
2
6. As per the office report dated 26.3.2026, a report from the Mediation
Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the
parties is successful.
7. 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,
cognizance/summoning order be quashed on the ground of settlement
arrived at between the parties.
8. Learned counsels for the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 state
that the case under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been
decided by the concerned Family Court on 23.4.2026.
9. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2 could not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties
which is on record.
10. 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 23.8.2025 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(f) of the said mediation report.
11. 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.
NA528 No. 7624 of 2025
3
12. 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 impugned proceedings, charge sheet,
cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicants.
13. The present application is allowed.
14. The impugned proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance/summoning
order in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Naresh
Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…