Allahabad High Court
Seema Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15994 of 2022 Petitioner :- Seema Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshman Tripathi,Aniruddha Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri Lakshman Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 21.10.2021 being Case Crime No.0221 of 2021 under Section 419, 420, 409, 506 IPC, P.S. Chetganj, Distt. Varanasi and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and her name has surfaced during the course of investigation because she is the wife of co-accused Manish Pandey. Against the aforesaid FIR, the husband of the petitioner has moved Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6255 of 2022 (Manish Pandey v. State of U.P.) in which on the basis of compromise deed dated 24.8.2022 between the parties, learned Single Judge has accorded bail to the husband of the petitioner vide order dated 12.9.2022. The said compromise deed dated 24.8.2022 has also been brought on record as Anneuxre No.2 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, has submitted that no doubt against her husband police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been forwarded to the competent court but once the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise deed dated 24.8.2022, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of 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 as well as the judgment of this Court dated 16.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8510 of 2022 (Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors.). It is contended that the petitioner is house lady having no criminal antecedent and as such this Court may come for rescue and reprieve of her.
Learned AGA on the basis of instructions apprises to the Court that investigation is in progress against the petitioner.
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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the Investigating Officer to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and as per the compromise deed dated 24.8.2022.
For a period of two months, the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to impugned FIR, provided she cooperates with the investigation in question.
Order Date :- 11.11.2022 SP/