Allowed¶19

Abrar Khan Alias Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2025NA528/24560/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; quashing of charge sheet; cognizance order; compromise between parties; settlement verified by court; matrimonial dispute; abuse of process of law; ends of justice; 498A IPC; 323 IPC; 504 IPC; 506 IPC; Dowry Prohibition Act 3/4; Case Crime No. 524 of 2012; Criminal Case No. 2720 of 2013; C.J.M. Jhansi; Police Station Kotwali; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet dated 8.2.2013, the cognizance order dated 3.4.2013 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2720 of 2013 (State v. Abrar Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 524 of 2012, pending before the C.J.M., Jhansi. ¶19

Abrar Khan Alias Raju and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 8.2.2013, the cognizance order dated 3.4.2013 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2720 of 2013 (arising out of Case Crime No. 524 of 2012) should be quashed in view of the compromise and settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties' settlement there was practically no chance of conviction and the trial would be an exercise in futility, so it was in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Continuing 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 it was appropriate that the criminal case be put to an end.

¶16

Key takeaways

In view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble 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 Criminal Case No. 2720 of 2013 were quashed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise — Application under S. 528 BNSS allowed — Charge sheet dated 8.2.2013, cognizance order dated 3.4.2013 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2720 of 2013 (arising out of Case Crime No. 524 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi) quashed — Parties entered into compromise on 21.6.2025, verified by the court concerned on 7.8.2025 — Court held proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the settlement there was practically no chance of conviction and trial would be an exercise in futility — Continuation despite settlement would tantamount to abuse of process of law — Reliance placed 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 — State (AGA) raised no objection.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24560 of 2025

¶3

Abrar Khan Alias Raju And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Om Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 8.2.2013 including cognizance order dated 3.4.2013 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.2720 of 2013, State Vs. Abrar Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No.524 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi pending in the court of C.J.M., Jhansi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 21.6.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 7.8.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

NA528 No. 24560 of 2025

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 21.6.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶18

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.

¶19

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶20

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶21

September 18, 2025 Bhaskar

¶22

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

Abrar Khan Alias Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar Khan Alias Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases