Allahabad High Court
Smt. Payal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 December, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191899-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17446 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt. Payal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnikant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajnikant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Shikhar Neelkanth, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 12.10.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 974 of 2022, under section 363 I.P.C., P.S. Baghpat, District-Baghpat. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is a student of class-XII in Shahid Manvir National School and the second petitioner used to run a Bakery in the name of Amit Pilwan Bakery at Greater Faridabad. Both the petitioners are major aged about 19 and 23 years respectively. He next submits that the parents of first petitioner wanted to marry her with an old person and being aggrieved the first petitioner who was in love affair with second petitioner had left her parental home on her own accord and solemnized marriage with second petitioner on her own sweet will according to Hindu rites and rituals at present they are living happly as husband and wife. They have also applied online registration to get their marriage registered, copy whereof has been annexed a Annexure- 3 & 4 of the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 states that the respondent no. 4 has wholeheartedly accepts the marriage of petitioners. He further submits that the first information report was lodge by the respondent no. 4 in a fit of rage being influenced by societal pressure and now he has no objection, if the Hon'ble Court is pleased to quash the F.I.R. The said fact is evident from paragraph 6 and 7 of the short counter affidavit.
6. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 16.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8510 of 2022 (Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein it is observed that the High Court has ample power under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report in which the parties have settled their disputes which are of private in nature and have no any grave impact on the society. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies are very precious which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak.
7. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;
"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled, therefore, the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra); Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), J.T. 2008 (9) SC 192; Gian Singh (supra); Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 and also Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and in view of the settlement agreement dated 10.12.2023, the First Information Report dated 12.10.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 974 of 2022, under section 363 I.P.C., P.S. Baghpat, District-Baghpat is hereby quashed.
10. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Faridul