Allowed

Mohd. Riyaj and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2025A482/3999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a chargesheet and summoning order in a dowry/cruelty criminal case after entering into a compromise with the second respondent, which the trial court verified. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet dated 20.09.2023, summoning order dated 07.11.2023 and entire consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 20211/2023 quashed as against the applicants.

Mohd. Riyaj and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33151

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3999 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Riyaj And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Shukla,Atul Sharma,Rahul Rai

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind,Arvind Kumar Shukla

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶8

Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2.

¶9

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

¶10

" i. to quash and set aside the impugned chargesheet dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure No.1) along with summoning order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure No.2) along with other consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 20211/2023, "State. Vs. Mohd. Riyaj & Ors.". currently pending before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh arising out of Crime No. 336/2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 406, 376 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Applicant No.1 and under sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 406 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Applicant No. 2 to 7. P.S- Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.01.2025 which was verified by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide verification report order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure No. 7), in the interest of justice."

¶11

Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 13.01.2025 entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 02.04.2025 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.3.2025 passed in the Application U/s 482 No.1978 of 2025.

¶12

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

¶13

It appears that after considering the averments made in the present application and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 4.3.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

It appears from the order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure No. 7) that the trial court has verified the compromise.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 29.5.2025 S. Kumar

¶19

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

Mohd. Riyaj and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Riyaj and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Jagat Narain Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Anshuman Deo Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Atul Kumar @ Atul and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ibrahim @ Gulle vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neelu Rastogi vs Shri Rakesh Kumar, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Lko.

Ram Datta Mishra and 5 Others vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture Ayodhya