Smt Shabnam Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29756 of 2025

¶3

Smt Shabnam

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 9 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Chetan Chatterjee
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Ran Vijay Singh, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Tazim Ansari, advocate holding brief of Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 76 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2016, (State vs. Rijvan and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 376, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Saharanpur on basis of compromise.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 29.01.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 04.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶11

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.

¶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

¶13

NA528 No. 29756 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 29.01.2025, 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

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶22

September 25, 2025 S.Prakash

¶23

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

Smt Shabnam v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shabnam v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

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