RAHUL AND 3 OTHERS v. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
A482/21542/2024 · 2025-08-10
Vikram D Chauhan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 72502 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 72502 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135572 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21542 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul And 3 Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.1394 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 766 of 2023 "State of U.P. versus Rahul and others" under section 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Modinagar, District-Ghaziabad pending in the court of "Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad", as well as, charge sheet dated 12.02.2024 and cognizance and summoning order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Case No. 1394 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 766 of 2023 "State of U.P. versus Rahul and others" under section 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Modinagar, District-Ghaziabad. It is further prayed to set aside order dated 31.05.2024 passed by
"Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad" in Case No.1394 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 766 of 2023 "State of U.P. versus Rahul and others" under section 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Modinagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby the learned trial court rejected the application dated 24.05.2024 filed along with compromise dated 24.05.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 05.08.2024 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 05.08.2024, therefore, the present case be finally decided. 4. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal
proceedings. 5.
Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed. 6. It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end. 7. In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise dated 05.08.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 8. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 9. The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad