Zohair Hazan @ Mohd. Zohair @ Zohair Hasan Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Zohair Hazan @ Mohd. Zohair @ Zohair Hasan Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 22.01.2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.03.2010 and the entire proceedings of Case No.2975 of 2010: State Vs. Zohair Hasan, arising out of Case Crime No.803 of 2009 (Sections 498-A, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow).

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned charge sheet dated 22.01.2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.03.2010 and the entire proceedings of Case No.2975 of 2010: State Vs. Zohair Hasan (arising out of Case Crime No.803 of 2009) should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, it is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings, as continuance thereof would be an exercise in futility.

Ratio / Principle

The verification report of the learned trial court confirms the complainant appeared on 27.06.2025 and admitted to have entered into the compromise without any fear and coercion and with consent, supporting the bona fides of the settlement.

Key takeaways

The application is allowed: the impugned charge sheet dated 22.01.2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.03.2010 and the entire proceedings of Case No.2975 of 2010: State Vs. Zohair Hasan, arising out of Case Crime No.803 of 2009, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.42, Lucknow, are quashed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS allowed. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench, Court No.15) quashed the impugned charge sheet dated 22.01.2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.03.2010 and the entire proceedings of Case No.2975 of 2010: State Vs. Zohair Hasan, arising out of Case Crime No.803 of 2009 (Sections 498-A, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow), pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.42, Lucknow. Basis: (i) during pendency the parties settled the dispute, the applicant paying Rs.10,00,000/- to opposite party no.2, who stated she had no grievance left; (ii) a trial-court verification report dated 01.07.2025 recorded the complainant's appearance on 27.06.2025 and her admission of the compromise 'without any fear and coercion and with consent'; (iii) counsel for opposite party no.2 accepted the factum of compromise and stated the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, the parties living separately. Relying on the Supreme Court ratios in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. ((2008) 9 SCC 677), Manoj Sharma v. State ((2008) 16 SCC 1), Gian Singh v. Station of Punjab ((2010) 15 SCC 118) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the Court held continuance of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility. Order Date: 9.7.2025; Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:39122.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39122

Court No. - 15

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4633 of 2025

Applicant :- Zohair Hazan @ Mohd. Zohair @ Zohair Hasan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Ahmad Abbas Zaidi

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Syed Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Syed Ahmad Abbas Zaidi, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 22.01.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.03.2010 along with entire proceedings of Case No.2975 of 2010: State Vs. Zohair Hasan, arising out of Case Crime No.803 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.42, Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 20.08.2009. During pendency of the case the parties have arrived at a settlement under which the applicant has paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 has stated that she has no grievance left against the applicant.

4. The Court has sought for a verification report from the learned trial court and the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.42, Lucknow has submitted a report dated 01.07.2025 stating that the complainant of the case appeared before the trial court on 27.06.2025 and admitted to have entered into a compromise without any fear and coercion and with consent.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also accepted the factum of compromise before this court and he supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings stating that the parties have got their marriage dissolved by mutual consent and they are living separately and they have no grievance left against each other.

6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab : (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another : (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

7. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet dated 22.01.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.03.2010 along with entire proceedings of Case No.2975 of 2010: State Vs. Zohair Hasan, arising out of Case Crime

No.803 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.42, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Ram.

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench