Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Pundir vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154300
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9534 of 2025
Jitendra Pundir
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Harish Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Radha Kant Singh
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra "Srivastava", learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Navin Singh (AoR No.0504 of 2023) holding brief of Sri Radha Kant Singh, for the O.P. No.2.
2. A joint statement has been made by the counsel for the parties that they do not want to file any affidavit and the application may be decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the applicant is that post-lodging of a complaint under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, the case was registered as Complaint Case No.430 of 2018, wherein the applicant herein was convicted under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on 17.10.2022 by the Judicial Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar, Hapur in Criminal Misc/108/2018, Complaint Case No. 430 of 2018.
4. Assailing the same a criminal appeal came to be preferred by the applicant herein questioning the conviction order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 430 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act being Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2022, Jitendra Pundir vs. State of U.P., before District & Sessions Judge, Hapur. During the pendency of the appeal, the O.P. No.2 preferred an application dated 05.09.2024 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and a compromise was also entered into between the parties on 04.03.2024, a copy whereof is Annexure-4 at page-65 of the paper-book, reference whereof is in para-11. The Court of District & Sessions Judge, Hapur proceeded to reject the said application/ compromise on 04.02.2025 on the ground that the sections under which the conviction has been done is not compoundable.
5. Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.
6. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.
7. Apparently, post-lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the complaint came to be registered against the applicant and thereafter, on 17.10.2022, the applicant came to be convicted under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.),/ Judicial Magistrate, Gargh Mukteshwar, Hapur in Complaint Case No. 430 of 2018. Assailing the same, a criminal appeal came to be preferred by the applicant being Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2022 (Jitendra Pundir Vs. State of U.P. and another), and during the pendency of the same, the parties entered into compromise on 04.03.2024, a copy whereof is Annexure-4 at page-64 onwards and proceedings under Section 13-B also came to be preferred by the parties, which is pending before the Family Court, Hardwar under the Marriage Act and thereafter an application came to be preferred on 05.09.2024 by the O.P. No.2 that since the compromise has been entered into between the parties, there remains no dispute, thus the order of conviction be set aside in the pending appeal. The said application came to be rejected on 04.02.2025 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hapur. A short counter affidavit has been filed by O.P. No.2 sworn by her on 28.06.2025 in whcih in para- 2 to 7, the following has been averred
"2. That it is german to mention here that dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2 has been settled and in this respect an application for settlement was filed by the applicant and opposite party no.2 on 05.09.2024 filed in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2022 (Jitendra Pundir Vs. State of U.P. and Another) in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Hapur requesting therein to dispose of the case on the basis of settlement because the informant/opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the any proceeding against the applicant including of Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2022 (Jitendra Pundir Vs. State of U.P. and Another) pending in the District and Sessions court, Hapur aring out of Complaint Case No.430 of 2018 (Anjali Vs. Jitendra and others) under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S Garhmukteswar, District Hapur. The Session Judge, Hapur compromise application paper no. 29kha has been rejected on 04.02.2025 on the basis, that offence under section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, is not compoundable.
3. That it is pertinent to mention hear that though offence is not compoundable in view of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") but in several decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the different High Courts have held that in cases of matrimonial disputes where the dispute gets settled between both the sides, all the criminal proceedings even after conviction at the revisional or appellate stage, may be set aside in the interest of justice. (B.S.Joshi & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in the case of Wasi Asgar & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Cr. Revision No. 239 of 2015 on 15.07.2015).
4. That now the opposite party no.2 has no any grudge in his soul and heart and is intending to finish their enmity with each other and in this regard compromise application was filed before the court below, but the learned subordinate court has rejected the same.
5. That the dispute between the parties appears is of private in nature and does not have any serious impact on society if parties compromise the matter, as stated earlier that there is a matrimonial dispute between the two parties.
6. That the, out of 7.5 lakh, the opposite party no.2 has already received ?3.5 lakh from applicant and she will take ?400000 through at the time of divorce as per agreement.
7. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2022 (Jitendra Pundir Vs. State of U.P. and Another) pending in the District and Sessions court, Hapur and quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.430 of 2018 (Anjali Vs. Jitendra and others) under section 498- A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S Garhmukteswar, District Hapur."
8. A statement has been made by Sri Harish Chandra "Srivastava", learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Navin Singh holding brief of Sri Radha Kant Singh for O.P. No.2 that now there remains no dispute between them and present dispute emanates from a matrimonial dispute, wherein conviction order has been passed under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act, thus the conviction be set aside by this Court, as now there remains no dispute between them, and already a proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been instituted.
9. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and looking into the over all facts situation and bearing in mind the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and a short counter affidavit has been filed by the O.P. No.2, which is already available on record, for setting aside the conviction and since the dispute is personal in nature and the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and following the judgment in the case of Ram Gopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021, it would be appropriate to issue a direction to the court below to decide the appeal in terms of the compromise so entered into between the parties.
10. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following manner:-
(a) The order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2022, Jitendra Pundir vs. State of U.P., rejecting the compromise is set aside.
(b) The matter stands remitted back to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal in terms of compromise dated 04.03.2024 and the application/ affidavit submitted on 05.09.2024 for setting aside the conviction awarded by Judicial Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar in Criminal Misc./108/2018, Complaint Case No.430 of 2018 dated 17.10.2022.
11. In terms of the above, the application stands allowed.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 2, 2025
N.S.Rathour
