Shashank Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Shashank Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of Criminal Case No. 735/2012 (State vs. Shashank Shrivastav and others), charge-sheet no. 29/2012 dated 29.04.2012 in Case Crime no. 135/2012 (Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Line Bazar, Jaunpur) and the cognizance order dated 19.5.2012 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, pursuant to the compromise dated 06.05.2025/ 04.08.2025 verified on 09.09.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings comprising Criminal Case No. 735/2012 (State vs. Shashank Shrivastav and others), charge-sheet no. 29/2012 dated 29.04.2012 and the cognizance order dated 19.5.2012 of CJM Jaunpur (arising from FIR Case Crime no. 135/2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act) should be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement entered into between the parties.

Court's answer

The criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, and there are no such overbearing circumstances warranting continued prosecution of the applicants once the parties have entered into a settlement; given the parties' stand, there is practically no chance of recording conviction even if the FIR case were put to trial, so the trial would be an exercise in futility and quashing would be in the interest of justice.

Ratio / Principle

Continuing with the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer would tantamount to abuse of the process of law; 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 further and the matter has been mutually settled between them in terms of the compromise dated 06.05.2025/ 04.08.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.ratio¶¶18
In view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 735/2012 and the related charge-sheet and cognizance order are hereby quashed, and the application under Section 528 BNSS is accordingly allowed.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) | October 6, 2025 | APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30287 of 2025 | Shashank Srivastava And Another v. State of U.P. and Another. Applicants sought quashing of Criminal Case No. 735/2012 (State vs. Shashank Shrivastav and others), charge-sheet no. 29/2012 dated 29.04.2012 in FIR Case Crime no. 135/2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Line Bazar, Jaunpur, and the cognizance order dated 19.5.2012 of CJM Jaunpur, on the basis of a compromise dated 06.05.2025/ 04.08.2025 verified by the court on 09.09.2025. Learned AGA conceded settlement was verified and there was virtually no chance of conviction. Court held the proceedings arose essentially from a matrimonial dispute, that prosecution after settlement lacked cause and that trial would be futile/abuse of process; relying 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, it quashed the proceedings and allowed the application.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30287 of 2025

Shashank Srivastava And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Satyendra Pandey	Narayan	Singh, Shivalika
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 76

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

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

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

This application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the Criminal Case No. 735/2012 (State vs. Shashank Shrivastav and others), as well as charge-sheet number 29/2012 dated 29.04.2012 in Case Crime no. 135/2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationLine Bazar, Jaunpur, as well as cognizance order dated 19.5.2012, passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur on the basis of compromise dated 06.05.2025, entered into between the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 06.05.2025/ 04.08.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 09.09.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

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.

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

NA528 No. 30287 of 2025

2

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 06.05.2025/ 04.08.2025, 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 under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, allowed.

October 6, 2025 Gurpreet Singh

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad