Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 84036 (ALL)

HASAN MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS v. State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

A482/25577/2024 · 2025-07-20

Vikram D Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118233 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25577 of 2024 Applicant :- Hasan Mohammad And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Dwivedi,Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nishi Sengar Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Nishi Sengar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Case no. 11544/2024 (State Vs. Hasan Mohammad and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 33/2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rorawar, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh as well as charge-sheet No.47 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024 and cognizance order dated 02.04.2024. 3. Vide order dated 02.09.2024, the matter was referred to the mediation center of this Court. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order the parties have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and have arrived at a settlement agreement dated 19.02.2025. The mediation report dated 19.02.2025 as well as settlement agreement is part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the settlement agreement has arrived at between the parties and one of the terms and conditions is to withdrawal of the cases filed against each other, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court. 6. 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. 7. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 settlement agreement dated 19.02.2025, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 10. 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. 11. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 AS Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad