Himanshu Sunilkumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.12969 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur and the summoning order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the A.C.J.M, Sultanpur.

3. In pursuance of the earlier order passed by this Court, Ms. Kavya Jain holding brief of Sri Shishir Jain, counsel for the High Court produced a copy of the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, by which Case No.1199 of 2025 filed by the applicant and opposite party no.2 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce has been allowed on the basis of compromise. The same is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the parties have entered into compromise and the Family Court has also taken note of the aforesaid compromise in its order dated 04.05.2026, the impugned proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case are quashed on the basis of the compromise.

6. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties has held that the Court can use its inherent power to do real and substantial justice and to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties in the cases of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.

8. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further; the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

9. Application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.12969 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur and the summoning order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the A.C.J.M, Sultanpur, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

May 7, 2026

Rao/-