Manu Vaid and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24692 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶1Learned counsel for the applicants has produced demand draft bearing no. 003915 dated 23.09.2025 issued by the HDFC Bank of Rs.2,05,000/- in favour of Bhawna Kasana-opposite party no.2 towards final payment of settlement. A photo copy of the same is kept on record. 1-A. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shivam Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 5092/2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 arising out of Case Crime No. 105/2023; Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC-I (Offences against Women), Ghaziabad. Further to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC-I (Offences against Women), Ghaziabad, in Case No. 5092/2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406 IPC & 3/4 of D.P. Act arising out of Case Crime No.105 of 2023, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 01.09.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 01.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided. Learned counsel for the applicant has handed over the aforesaid demand draft to Shivam Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 towards final payment of settlement.

¶4Sri Shivam Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has received the aforesaid demand draft of Rs.2,05,000/- from learned counsel for the applicant today in Court and submits that he would have no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed in view of the settlement dated 01.09.2025. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Srivastava, Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar, G.A., Shivam Verma Manu Vaid And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶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 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 settlement dated 01.09.2025, 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. 24692 of 2025 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad