Arif and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Arif and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; proceedings of Case No.27760 of 2020 (State Vs. Arif and others) quashed, encompassing the impugned cognizance order dated 31.08.2020 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, the charge sheet dated 11.08.2020 in Case Crime No. 187 of 2020, and the criminal proceedings pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate08, Agra.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned cognizance order dated 31.08.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No.27760 of 2020 (State Vs. Arif and others), the charge sheet dated 11.08.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 187 of 2020, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate08, Agra, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 24.09.2024 executed between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

As the parties do not want to pursue the case any further and the matter has been mutually settled between them in view of the compromise dated 24.9.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Ratio / Principle

The criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, and there are no overbearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties entered into a settlement.

Key takeaways

With the parties' stand in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction even if the case under the F.I.R. is put to trial; the entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility.ratio¶11
It would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer; continuation would tantamount to abuse of the process of law, and putting the criminal case to an end secures the ends of justice.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; Order Date 7.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:106281) - Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 19981 of 2025, Arif And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another. Application sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 31.08.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No.27760 of 2020 (State Vs. Arif and others) and the charge sheet dated 11.08.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 187 of 2020 (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3; additionally Section 354 I.P.C. against applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6; and Section 3/4 The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act against applicant no.1), Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, proceedings pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate08, Agra. Parties had entered a compromise dated 24.09.2024, verified by the court concerned on 9.4.2025; learned A.G.A. conceded the settlement and that conviction was virtually impossible. Court held the proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the settlement there was practically no chance of recording conviction and trial would be an exercise in futility; continuation despite settlement and compromise between victim and wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of the process of law. Relying on the principles laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings were quashed and the application allowed.