Mohd Sarwar Hussain @ Sheru And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:106160
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where parties to criminal proceedings involving offences under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act have amicably settled their dispute through mediation and agreed to withdraw the cases against each other, the High Court may exercise its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance and summoning order and further proceedings in those cases.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Adnan Aamir, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Mohd. Sarwar Hussain @ Sheru, Smt. Sajida Khatun, Shadab @ Ahamad Hussain and Fiza, with the prayers to quash cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2021 further proceeding of Case No. 1878 of 2021 (State Vs. Mohd. Sarwar Hussain @ Sheru and others) in Case Crime No. 236 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/FTC (Women), Azamgarh and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.
4. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.
5. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 05.08.2025 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them in view of said settlement agreemen.
6. As per the office report dated 12.03.2026, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.
7. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 05.08.2025 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7(e) of the said mediation report.
8. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition.
9. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
10. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s).
11. The present application is allowed.
12. The further proceedings and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2021 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 7, 2026
M. ARIF
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free