Allahabad High Court
Aasub Miyan @ Aashum Miyan And 2 ... vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Mohd. Azhar Idrisi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15111 of 2022
Petitioner :- Aasub Miyan @ Aashum Miyan And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Ravi Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Ravi Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to First Information Report dated 10.05.2022 in Case Crime No. 165 of 2022, under Sections 493, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that parties have entered into compromise and compromise deed has already been prepared on 06.09.2022 which has been brought on record by filing short counter affidavit. It is contended that since the parties have entered into compromise and matter has already been resolved, therefore, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the informant has not disputed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that he has no objection in case matter is referred to the Investigating Officer who may proceed with the case in terms of compromise.
It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute between the parties, same has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise deed dated 06.09.2022, 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.).
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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."
The present dispute was between the parties. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under the compromise deed dated 06.09.2022.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the investigating officer to proceed strictly in accordance with law and considering the compromise deed dated 06.09.2022. For a period of two months, the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to impugned FIR, provided they cooperate with the investigation in question.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022
Rmk.
