Asha Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 882 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5565 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Asha Khandelwal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mayank Srivastava,Sumit Jaiswal
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sumit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 30.03.2018 registered as case crime no. 48 of 2018 under sections 174-A I.P.C., Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and entered into a compromise on 14.01.2019 copy of which has been annexed as annexure-5 to the present petition and all the payment is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the private respondent and now the respondent no. 3 has no grievance with the petitioner but the compromise which has been arrived between the parties is not being entertained by the Investigating Officer, hence the impugned F.I.R. be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

Sri Sumit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has admitted the fact of the compromise.

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 and has submitted that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 have compromised the dispute and as such respondent no. 3 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioner and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to 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.

(Subhash Chand, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 13.1.2021

PS