Allahabad High Court
Munne @ Firdaus Alam & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary ... on 21 January, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 1730 of 2021
Petitioner :- Munne @ Firdaus Alam & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anurag Verma, A.G.A. for the State, Shri Vijendra Singh holding brief of Shri Sameer Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 is taken on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. No. 0364 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki. A further prayer of mandamus commanding the respondents not to adopt coercive method against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of trivial dispute between the parties, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and entered into a compromise on 06.01.2021, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the present petition and now the respondent no. 4 has no grievance with the petitioners, but the compromise which has been arrived between the parties is not being entertained by the Investigating Officer, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another reported in 2008 (9) SCC 677. It has lastly been submitted that as the respondent no. 4 is ready to withdraw the prosecution against the petitioners and also in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
Shri Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 admits the fact of the compromise and submits that the counter affidavit has been filed by the private respondent no. 4 to that effect.
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, there is minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and it may become difficult to prove the prosecution case, hence, chances of conviction appear to be remote. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma (supra) and Nikhil Merchant (supra) that this court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the F.I.R., the impugned FIR is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
Office is directed to communicate this order to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki forthwith.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 21.1.2021/VKS
