Sachin Swaroop and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sachin Swaroop and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under S. 528 BNSS allowed; charge sheet dated 31.08.2024, cognizance order dated 01.01.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2385 of 2025 (State v. Sachin Swaroop & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 353 of 2024 quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 31.08.2024, the cognizance order dated 01.01.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2385 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 353 of 2024) ought to be quashed in view of the settlement/compromise between the parties.

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, and there were no overbearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted after the parties entered into a settlement.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the parties' stand in terms of their settlement, there was practically no chance of recording conviction even if the FIR case went to trial; the entire trial would be an exercise in futility, and quashing was in the interest of justice.

Key takeaways

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of process of law; to secure the ends of justice, the criminal case ought to be put to an end.ratio¶17
Since the parties did not wish to pursue the case further and the matter was mutually settled in view of the compromise dated 21.01.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.ratio¶18
In view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of the aforesaid case were quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) allowed an application under S. 528 BNSS and quashed the charge sheet dated 31.08.2024, the cognizance order dated 01.01.2025 of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2385 of 2025 (State v. Sachin Swaroop & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 353 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Agra. Holding the proceedings to be essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, compromised on 21.01.2025 (compromise verified by the court on 02.09.2025), the court found no overbearing circumstances warranting prosecution, observed that conviction was practically impossible and trial would be an exercise in futility amounting to abuse of process, and relying on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, quashed the proceedings in the interest of justice.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22458 of 2025

Sachin Swaroop And 4 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manish Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 76

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2024 alongwith cognizance order dated 01.01.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2385 of 2025 (State Vs. Sachin Swaroop & others) arising out of Case Crime No.353 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 21.01.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 02.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.

Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of

NA528 No. 22458 of 2025

2

the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.

It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise dated 21.01.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

September 22, 2025 Imtiyaz

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad