Allowed

Arif and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025A482/3086/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR alleging dowry-related matrimonial cruelty. The parties entered a compromise verified by the trial court, with the complainant stating she had no grievance. Invoking settled principles on quashment based on settlement, the court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings qua the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2024, charge sheet dated 30.07.2024 and summon order arising from FIR No. 45 of 2024 quashed qua the applicants.

Arif and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20442

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3086 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Arif And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Prem Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri Prem Kumar, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main reliefs:-

¶9

"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased,

¶10

That it would be expedient in the interest of justice

¶11

That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quashed the proceeding of criminal case no 1342 of 2024 and Charge sheet dated 30.07.2024 as well as Summon order dated 3.00.2024, arising out of case crime /F.I.R No 45 of 2024 under section under section 498 A / 504/506 , I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 Police station Bangarmau District Unnao ,pending before the CAW/FTC, Unnao contained. Annexure no 4 and 5 this petition and it is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application the proceeding of criminal case no 1342 of 2024 be stayed till final disposal"

¶12

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 5.3.2025 (annexure no. 7) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 21.3.2025 (annexure no. 8) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 5.3.2025 (annexure-1) passed in the present case.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that she has no grudge or grievance against the present applicants now.

¶14

It appears that after considering the averments made in the present case and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 5.3.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the

¶15

parties.

¶16

It appears from the order dated 21.3.2025 (Annexure No. 8) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 , according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlement between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed,as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶18

Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicants.

¶19

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 AKK

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arif and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nakul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Juvenile X (Now Major ) in Pocso Case No 571 of 2021 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ramji Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jagdish Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Kumar @ Kuldeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another