Allahabad High Court
Mohit Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief ... on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26069 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohit Jaiswal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Home Deptt. Lucknow And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Jatin Raheja,Shakti Kumar Sharma,Shobhit Harsh,Sudhanshu Chauhan,Savitra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ganesh Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3 alongwith Shri Jatin Raheja, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 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 24.12.2020 registered as Case Crime No.1012 of 2020, under Sections 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
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 17.10.2022 copy of which has been annexed as Flag 'A' Annexure-D to the present petition and now the respondent no.4 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.
Shri Shri Jatin Raheja, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 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.4 have compromised the dispute and as such respondent no.4 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the petitioner. The respondent no.4 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.
(Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
Order Date :- 11.11.2022
Zafar
