Allahabad High Court
MOHD. SALMAN SHEKHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the marriage and verified compromise between the parties, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Mohd. Salman Sheikh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash Criminal Case No.3059 of 2025, alleging that he had married the victim and that a compromise had been reached and verified by the trial court. The opposite party admitted the marriage, and the State opposed the prayer but could not dispute the facts of marriage and compromise. The court examined several Supreme Court judgments where prosecutions were quashed on the ground of marriage and settlement between the parties. Relying on those precedents, the court held that continuing the prosecution would be contrary to justice. Consequently, the application was allowed and the entire criminal proceedings were quashed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the ground of marriage between the accused and the complainant and a verified compromise.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents on quashing prosecutions due to marriage and settlement are applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- marriage
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- Supreme Court precedent
- abuse of process
- criminal law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45960 of 2025
Mohd. Salman Shekh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Sevak Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pankaj Roy, G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Sevak Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Pankaj Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA
for the State-opposite party no.1.
2. Present application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed to
quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3059 of 2025 (State vs.
Mohd. Salman Sheikh), arising out of Case Crime No.0589 of 2024),
under Section 64, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Line Bazar, District
Jaunpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur as
well as chargesheet dated 28.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 18.07.2025.
3. The following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for
the applicant:
(i) The applicant and the victim of the present case have entered
into matrimonial alliance on 22.09.2025, a copy of Nikahnama has
been appended alongwith the counter affidavit dated 19.11.2025.
(ii) The applicant and the victim, after solemnization of their
marriage, are living together as husband and wife under the same
roof.
(iii) The applicant and the victim/informant of the present case have
entered into compromise on 25.09.2025 and the same has been
verified by the learned trial court on 09.12.2025 in pursuance of
NA528 No. 45960 of 2025
2
order passed by this Court on 27.11.2025. The compromise
verification report dated 09.12.2025 has been appended alongwith
rejoinder affidavit 23.02.2026.
(iv) The parties have entered into matrimonial alliance and they are
residing together as husband and wife and the matter has been
resolved amicably and compromise had taken place, which has
been verified by the learned trial court on 09.12.2025, therefore, the
proceedings against the applicant be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has put his appearance and
accepted the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and
admitted this fact that the marriage of the victim has been solemnized
with the applicant.
5. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel
for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact of marriage, compromise
and its verification.
6. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. Undoubtedly, the marriage of the applicant and the victim has taken
place and a compromise has also taken place between the applicant and
the victim which has also been verified by the learned Trial Court vide
order dated 09.12.2025.
8. Reference may be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in K.
Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and other Vs. The State of Rajasthan,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 433, wherein, the Apex Court quashed the
criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had
solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and court cannot turn a blind
eye to the said fact. In the submission of learned counsel for applicant, the
ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, no exception can be
carved out in the case of present applicants with reference to the
aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court inasmuch as the applicant
has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are
NA528 No. 45960 of 2025
3
happily living together. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for
applicant submits that the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be
sustained in law as well as fact and therefore, the same is liable to be
quashed by this Court.
9. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal
(Supra) also quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the
grounds that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix
and secondly, the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. Since the
judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra)
is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in its entirety:
"Leave granted.
The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix
belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward
community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a
woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was
registered against him for committing rape under Sections
5(j)(ii)read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n)
read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for
committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo
rigorous Reason: imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on
31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019,
upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the
appellant has filed this appeal.
Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he
had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of
marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the
prosecutrix and they have two children.
The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do
complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to
NA528 No. 45960 of 2025
4
disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.
After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th March, 2022,
we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the
prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the
prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has
categorically stated that she has two children and they are
being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy
married life.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the
State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the
ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of
the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15
years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He
argued that the marriage between the appellant and the
prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the
said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping
punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will
take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court
grants relief to him.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of
the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the
appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to
be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been
brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its
eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of
the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed
about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with
the maternal uncle.
For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and
sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the
case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is
accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
NA528 No. 45960 of 2025
5
In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the
prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can
move this Court for modification of this Order."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Shriram Urav Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021, decided on
10.01.2025, also quashed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed
upon the appellant on the ground that the appellant/accused and the
complainant/victim had married each other.
11. Similarly, in the case of Dasari Srikant vs. State of Telangana
reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein, under identical
circumstances and almost identical provisions the Supreme Court quashed
the proceedings instituted against the accused therein. The relevant
paragraph 8 to 10 of the Dasari Srikant (supra) read as under:-
"8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married
each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the
High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the
accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his
matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.
9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the
conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned
trial Court and modified by the High Court.
10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023
passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021
passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."
12. In another judgment of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and
Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court quashed the proceedings of offence, punishable under Section
354A, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground of
marriage between the accused and the victim. It was brought on record
that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children
NA528 No. 45960 of 2025
6
were born, whose documents were produced alongwith the appeal. The
Apex Court in this case quashed the proceedings on the ground that no
purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as it would cause
undue harassment to the appellant/accused and the victim and their
children.
13. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others
vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of
2025, quashed the proceedings of case crime no.302 of 2023, dated
20.11.2023, under sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of
case crime no.304 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023, under sections 376, 354-A,
354-D, 509 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:-
"6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section
376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature.
Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on
the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged
and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the
Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is
not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with
reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual
situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including
Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier
FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends
a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the
second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More
importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has
unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She
has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal
life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only
disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative
NA528 No. 45960 of 2025
7
nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including
through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the
prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also
amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual
understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the
trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only
prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant,
and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive
outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, and taking into account the
categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of
the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and
would only amount to abuse of process."
14. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgments as well as facts of the case, the present
application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.
15. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3059 of 2025 (State vs.
Mohd. Salman Sheikh), arising out of Case Crime No.0589 of 2024),
under Section 64, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Line Bazar, District
Jaunpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur as
well as chargesheet dated 28.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 18.07.2025, are hereby quashed.
16. No order as to costs.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 5, 2026
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…