2024 Prashant Kumar And 2 Others State of U.P. and Another & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Outcome
Quashed
proceedings in question are quashed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 498A, 504, 506
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. 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.…
Judgment
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record. 1-A. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Vandana Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 1242 of 2022 (State Vs. Prashant Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Achhalda, District-Auraiya pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Auraiya and Charge-Sheet dated 19.04.2022 and cognizance order, as well as, summoning order dated 13.06.2022 passed by Civil Judge (J.D./Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter was sent to the mediation centre by order dated 07.05.2024 subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. It is submitted that the amount was deposited, however, the mediation proceedings could not take place as the opposite party no.2 did not appear before the mediation centre and as such the amount deposited with the mediation centre may be directed to be returned to the applicant no.1. It is further submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 20.08.2024 and the same has been verified by the 2 A482 No. 14879 of 2024 court concerned on 22.08.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
Learned 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.
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.
Operative part
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.
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.
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 20.08.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 3 A482 No. 14879 of 2024
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.
The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
In view of the fact that mediation has not been taken place between the parties, let the amount of Rs. 25,000/- be returned to the applicant no.1 Prashant Kumar by mediation centre within 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 17, 2025 S.Prakash (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: proceedings in question are quashed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 498A, 504, 506; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.