Allahabad High Court
Teerath Lal Kesarwani And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:167184
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34311 of 2025
Teerath Lal Kesarwani And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rishabh Kesarwani, Shiva Pandey, Shrish Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Gaurav Pundir, G.A.
with
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4279 of 2025
Satish Kumar Kesharwani And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amrendra Nath Rai, Rishabh Kesarwani, Sanjay Singh, Shiva Pandey, Shrish Chandra, Siddhant Sahai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Yash Padia
and
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19857 of 2024
Usha Kesarwani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Manish Dubey, Saumitra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 76
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. On the consent of learned counsels for the respective parties, all the applications are being heard and decided together by a common judgment and order.
2. Heard learned counsels for the applicants, learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3-A. Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 34311 of 2025 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 125 of 2024 (State vs Satish Kesharwani & others) in pursuance of Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana, District: Prayagraj, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 D P Act, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Prayagraj emanating from FIR No. 122/2023 dated 26.12.2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj and the charge sheet No. 14/2024 dated 22.02.2024.
3-B. Application u/s 482 No.4279 of 2025 has been filed for quashing the impugned Cognizance and Summoning Order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D P Act, arising out of Case Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana, District: Prayagraj, as well as, Charge Sheet dated 22.02.2024 filed in Case Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana District: Prayagraj, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 DP Act as well as the entire Criminal proceedings of Case No. 125 of 2024 in pursuance of Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana, District: Prayagraj Under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 D P Act pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Prayagraj.
3-C. Application u/s 482 No.4279 of 2025 has been filed for quashing the impugned Cognizance and Summoning Order under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D P Act, dated 30.03.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj arising out of Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana, District: Prayagraj as well as Charge Sheet dated 22.02.2024 in pursuance of Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana District: Prayagraj under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D P Act as well as the entire Criminal proceedings of Case No. 125 of 2024 in pursuance of Crime no. 122 of 2023, PS: Mahila Thana, District: Prayagraj Under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 DP Act pending before Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court no. 21, Prayagraj.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the settlement agreement has already been entered between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 27.08.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
5. 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.
6. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of this Court. 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.
7. 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 settled the dispute and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.
8. 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 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.
9. 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 settlement agreement dated 27.08.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
10. 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.
11. The present applications are, accordingly, allowed.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 18, 2025
S.Prakash
