2025 Mohammad Arif And 5 Others State of U.P. and Another & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
proceedings in question are quashed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 74, 85, 115(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. 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…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hari Om Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated
11.2.2025 and summoning order dated 2.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Barielly as well as entire proceedings of Case No.659 of 2025, State Vs. Mohammad Arif and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0512 of 2024, under Sections 85, 74, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 13.5.2025 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 31.7.2025, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
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.
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 2 NA528 No. 23150 of 2025 virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.
Operative part
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.
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 13.5.2025, 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
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: proceedings in question are quashed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 74, 85, 115(2); Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.