Ajharuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ajharuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire criminal proceeding (charge sheet no. 01 dated 20.7.2024, cognizance order dated 19.4.2025 and proceedings of Case No. 410 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024) quashed; liberty reserved to the private respondent to file a recall application if harassed by the applicants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet no. 01 dated 20.07.2024, the cognizance order dated 19.04.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 410 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024) should be quashed, given that the genesis of the prosecution is a matrimonial dispute that has been resolved and the parties have resumed matrimonial life. +1 more

Court's answer

This court held that the genesis of the prosecution of the case in question is a matrimonial dispute which has already been resolved, the parties (applicant no. 1 Ajharuddin and kismtun) are enjoying their matrimonial life together, and accordingly the trial of the case is a futile one.

Ratio / Principle

On that basis, the court quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the case.

Key takeaways

Protective proviso attached to the quashing: in case the applicants try to harass the private respondent, it remains open to her to file a recall application.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), Court No. 14 — Rajeev Singh, J. — Decision dated December 10, 2025. Application U/S 482 No. 5235 of 2025, filed by Ajharuddin and 4 others under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash charge sheet no. 01 dated 20.07.2024, cognizance order dated 19.04.2025 and entire proceedings of Case No. 410 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur, instituted on an FIR of 28.05.2024 lodged by opposite party no. 2 (kismtun, wife of applicant no. 1) alleging dowry harassment and expulsion from the matrimonial home on 15.02.2024. Applicants' counsel had relied on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, citing possibility of settlement. Through hearings of 02.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 (interim abeyance; direction to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the wife), the spouses appeared, were identified, and both declared willingness to resume matrimonial life; Rs. 25,000/- was handed over. On 10.12.2025 counsel jointly confirmed the spouses were living together. Holding the genesis of the prosecution to be a resolved matrimonial dispute and the trial futile, the court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, reserving to the wife the right to file a recall application if harassed. Application allowed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Quashing sought of charge sheet no. 01 dated 20.7.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0125 of 2024 (Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur) and of cognizance order dated 19.4.2025, together with entire proceedings of Case No. 410 of 2025 (State vs. Ajharuddin & ors).¶10
Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur · 19.4.2025
Prior proceeding
Case instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.05.2024 against the applicants/petitioners by opposite party no. 2, who is the wife of applicant no. 1.¶19
Prior proceeding
Allegations in the FIR: all accused persons harassed her for demanding dowry and had turned her out of her matrimonial home on 15.02.2024.¶19
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet no. 1 dated 20.07.2024 filed; cognizance order dated 19.04.2025 passed; entire proceedings pending as Case No. 410 of 2025.¶18
Prior proceeding
Interim order of 02.07.2025 (recorded in judgment): notice issued to opposite party no. 2 to ascertain willingness for referral to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre; proceedings kept in abeyance as an interim measure.¶28
Prior proceeding
Order of 24.11.2025 (recorded in judgment): applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 directed to appear; applicant no. 1 directed to place a demand draft/cash of Rs. 25,000/- for respondent no. 2, failing which the interim order would be vacated.¶32
Prior proceeding
On 24.11.2025 applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 appeared and were duly identified; parents of respondent no. 2, Mohd. Umar and Nakeena, were also present.¶34
Prior proceeding
After deliberations, applicant no. 1 expressed willingness to live with the private respondent, and respondent no. 2 categorically stated she wanted to join him.¶35
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the direction, Rs. 25,000/- in cash brought by applicant no. 1 was handed over to respondent no. 2, and the impugned proceedings remained stayed till the next date of listing (10.12.2025).¶37