Allowed¶20

Mohd. Khursheed v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025NA528/29032/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise/settlement between parties in a matrimonial dispute; Sections 323, 504, 498A, 313 IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Sections 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage Right) Act, 2019; Section 528 BNSS; abuse of process of law; no chance of conviction; trial an exercise in futility; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; Allahabad High Court; Shamli; Kairana; charge-sheet and cognizance quashed; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet dated 29.01.2024, cognizance order dated 18.03.2024 and the entire proceedings in Case No. 4517/9 of 2024 (S.T. No.256 of 2024) arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2023 quashed. ¶20

Mohd. Khursheed Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Charge-sheet dated 29.01.2024, cognizance order dated 18.03.2024 and the entire proceedings in Case No. 4517/9 of 2024 (S.T. No.256 of 2024) arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2023 quashed.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2024, the cognizance order dated 18.03.2024 and the entire proceedings in Case No. 4517/9 of 2024 (S.T. No.256 of 2024), arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2023, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶7

Court's answer

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

¶13

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; to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶14

Key takeaways

In view of the well-settled principles 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¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2024, the cognizance order dated 18.03.2024 and the entire proceedings in Case No. 4517/9 of 2024 (S.T. No.256 of 2024), arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Khursheed), Police Station Kairana, District Shamli, under Sections 323, 504, 498A & 313 IPC, Sections 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage Right) Act, 2019 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The parties had entered into a compromise dated 02.09.2025, verified by the court concerned, and the learned AGA raised no objection, conceding virtually no chance of conviction. Holding the proceedings to be essentially an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, that the trial would be an exercise in futility, and that continuance despite settlement would amount to abuse of process of law, the Court, 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, quashed the proceedings. Decided September 25, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29032 of 2025

¶3

Versus Mohd. Khursheed .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjali Singh Tomer, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Inder Pal Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 76

¶4

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.01.2024 submitted by Investigating Officer, as well as, cognizance order dated 18.03.2024 passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court, Shamli, as well as, entire proceedings in Case No. 4517/9 of 2024 (S.T. No.256 of 2024) arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Khursheed) under sections 323, 504, 498A & 313 I.P.C. & 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage Right) Act, 2019 & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli pending in the court of Learned Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court, Shamli on the basis of compromise.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on

¶9

NA528 No. 29032 of 2025

¶10

¶11

02.09.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 02.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

NA528 No. 29032 of 2025

¶17

¶18

compromise dated 02.09.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶19

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.

¶20

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶21

September 25, 2025 S.Prakash

¶22

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Khursheed v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Khursheed 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