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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the charge sheet dated 11.2.2025, the summoning order dated 2.4.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.659 of 2025, State Vs. Mohammad Arif and others.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 11.2.2025, the summoning order dated 2.4.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No.659 of 2025, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, ought to be quashed in view of the compromise and settlement between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties having entered into a settlement there is practically no chance of conviction and the trial would be an exercise in futility, so quashing the criminal proceedings is in the interest of justice.

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of process of law, and to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

Key takeaways

Since the parties do not want to pursue the case any further and the matter has been mutually settled in terms of the compromise dated 13.5.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.ratio¶17
In view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir, Gian Singh and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing — matrimonial dispute — compromise between parties — Application under S. 528 BNSS to quash charge sheet dated 11.2.2025 and summoning order dated 2.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly, and entire proceedings of Case No.659 of 2025 (State Vs. Mohammad Arif and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0512 of 2024, Sections 85, 74, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hafizganj, District Bareilly. Parties entered into a compromise on 13.5.2025, verified by the court concerned on 31.7.2025; opposite party no.2 did not wish to proceed and the learned AGA raised no objection. Held: the criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the settlement there was practically no chance of conviction and the trial would be an exercise in futility; continuation despite settlement and compromise between victim and wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Relying on 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. (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23150 of 2025

Mohammad Arif And 5 Others

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Girish Kumar Mishra Hari Om Shukla, G.A.

Court No. - 76

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hari Om Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 11.2.2025 and summoning order dated 2.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Barielly as well as entire proceedings of Case No.659 of 2025, State Vs. Mohammad Arif and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0512 of 2024, under Sections 85, 74, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 13.5.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 31.7.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed.

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

NA528 No. 23150 of 2025

2

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 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 13.5.2025, 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.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

September 8, 2025

Bhaskar

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad