Allowed¶21

Muzaffar Ali and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2025NA528/28938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing under Section 528 BNSS (Allahabad HC, Vikram D. Chauhan, J., 24.09.2025) of charge sheet (01.06.2024), cognizance/summoning order (23.07.2024) and entire proceedings of S.T. No.140 of 2025 (Case Crime No.65 of 2024, 498A/323/504/506 IPC + 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and 376 IPC against applicant no.6, P.S. Milak Khanam, Rampur) after court-verified compromise of 14.07.2025 in a matrimonial dispute; abuse of process / ends of justice rationale; relied on Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir and Laxmi Narayan (SCC citations).

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet dated 1.6.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.7.2024 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.140 of 2025 (State Vs. Muzaffar Ali and others). ¶21

Muzaffar Ali 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 1.6.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.7.2024 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.140 of 2025 (State Vs. Muzaffar Ali and others).

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 1.6.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.7.2024 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.140 of 2025 (a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute) should be quashed in view of the settlement/compromise entered into by the parties. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute; with the parties having entered into a settlement there are no over-bearing circumstances warranting prosecution, there is practically no chance of recording conviction and the trial would be an exercise in futility.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise would be unfair, contrary to the interest of justice and tantamount to abuse of process of law; to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶15

Key takeaways

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. v. Laxmi Narayan, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; decision dated September 24, 2025) allowed Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28938 of 2025 and quashed the charge sheet dated 1.6.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.7.2024 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.140 of 2025 (State Vs. Muzaffar Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime No.65 of 2024, Police Station Milak Khanam, District Rampur — under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant nos.1 to 5, and additionally under Section 376 I.P.C. against applicant no.6. Basis: the parties had entered into a compromise on 14.7.2025, verified by the court concerned on 2.9.2025; opposite party no.2 did not wish to proceed; the proceedings were essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute with practically no chance of conviction, making further trial an exercise in futility, and continuation despite settlement would amount to abuse of process of law. Reliance placed on Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28938 of 2025

¶3

Versus Muzaffar Ali And 5 Others ....	.Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ghanshyam Dwivedi, G.A.	Krishna

¶4

Court No. - 76

¶5

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ghanshyam Krishna Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 1.6.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.7.2024 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.140 of 2025, State Vs. Muzaffar Ali and others, arising out of Case Crime No.65 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, against applicant nos.1 to 5 and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, against applicant no.6, Police Station Milak Khanam, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No.1, Rampur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 14.7.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 2.9.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶10

NA528 No. 28938 of 2025

¶11

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the

¶17

NA528 No. 28938 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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 14.7.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶20

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.

¶21

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶22

September 24, 2025 Bhaskar

¶23

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶24

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

Muzaffar Ali and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muzaffar Ali and 5 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

Radhey Shyam vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Mangal vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Chaudhary and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kushwaha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dipak and 4 Others vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home U.P at Lucknow and Another