Pradeep Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27720 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinod Kumar, advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2This application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding of Case No. 1201/2012 (State Vs. Pradeep Saxena and Others) pending before J.S.C.C./A.C.J.M. Court No. 7, Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime no 2417/2011 U/s 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, whereby the learned court below summoned the applicants to face the trial. Further, to quash the charge-sheet No. 105/2012 on 10.05.2012, as well as, cognizance order dated 13.09.2012 passed by learned Judge Small Causes Court/Additional, Session Judge Court No. 7 Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime No. 2417/2011 U/s 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, and as well as summoning order in pursuance of compromise between the parties on dated 02.02.2023.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vivek Kumar Sharma, G.A. Pradeep Kumar Saxena And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

02.02.2023 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 18.08.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶4Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed.

¶5Learned 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.

¶6Having 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.

¶7It 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 NA528 No. 27720 of 2025 the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶8In 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 02.02.2023, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶9Thus, 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.

¶10The present application is, accordingly, allowed. September 26, 2025 S.Prakash NA528 No. 27720 of 2025 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad