Ankur Tripathi And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10583 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8795 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ankur Tripathi And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Awasthi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amarjeet Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.02.2022, lodged at Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow registered at F.I.R. / Case Crime No.0068 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of aforesaid F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially it was a dispute between husband and wife, which was of matrimonial in nature but the informant lodged the F.I.R. against all the family members of the in-laws including husband with false and exaggerated contentions. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the F.I.R. by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, with the intervention of family members of both the sides, the husband/petitioner No.1 and wife/respondent No.4 resolved to solve their dispute through the Mediation and Conciliation Center. Therefore, vide order dated 24.11.2022, the case was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center.

4. According to the report of Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court dated 20.03.2023, the husband and wife, i.e. petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 settled their dispute permanently. They have agreed that both husband and wife will be separated from the conjugal bond. The first party, i.e. petitioner No.1 will pay Rs.16,00,000/- (Sixteen Lacs Only) towards one time full and final settlement money/alimony to opposite party No.4. The parties have also agreed that the cases including the F.I.R. No.0068/2022 will be withdrawn/not pressed by the respective complainants/petitioners. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that taking into consideration the terms of the compromise which has been annexed with the report of Mediation and Conciliation Center, the F.I.R. in question may be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also conceded that the matter between the petitioners and respondent No.4 has amicably been settled and further parties have no grievance with each other. If, the relief as prayed by the petitioners is granted in favour of petitioners, he has no objection. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the aforesaid facts.

6. Both the parties to the matrimonial dispute have arrived at a compromise. In such a situation, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice.

7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had occasioned to discuss the power of the Court in the case of Nazmul Hasan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2018 (7) ADJ 245] in which it has held in paras 15 which read as under :

"15. Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties on 7.5.2018, as extracted above in paragraph 5 and the categorical stand of the opposite party No. 3 before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged by opposite party No. 3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise"

8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has given another judgement in the case of Dinesh Sharma and Ors.Vs. State of U.P and Ors. [2017 (Suppl.) ADJ 613] on the same point.

9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Ors. [2013 (4) ADJ 40] the Apex Court considering the previous judgments of the Supreme Court has held that the criminal proceedings can be quashed by this court under its inherent power on the basis of mutual settlement.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and another [2011 CJ (SC) 239] has scrutinized the legal position in case of compromise in criminal cases in which the dispute was private in nature and continuation of proceeding will be sheer abuse of process of law and in this context the technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceeding. Although the power should be used by the court sparingly. It has been held by Apex Court by referring the previous judgments that:

"11. That brings to the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot' case (supra) whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34 IPC despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable under Section 406 was not compoundable the settlement between the parties could not be recognized nor the pending proceedings quashed. This Court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words:

"6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are,cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17-11-2001 PS Kotwali,Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."

12. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBIMANU/SC/7957/2008 : 2008 (9) SCC 677 where relying upon the decision in B.S.Joshi (supra), this Court took note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 420,467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC and held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil dispute which had been amicably settled between the parties it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.We may also at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in Manoj Sharma v.State and Ors. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (2008) 16 SCC 1. This Court observed:

"8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The first formation report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter.

9. As we have indicated herein before, the exercise of power under Section482 Code of Criminal Procedure of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility."

11. In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 CJ (SC) 1114] the Apex Court has discussed the scope of compromise where the disputes are private in nature and quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of mutual compromise.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (2008) 16 SCC 1 has held that the High Court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise the power to quash the first information report where the dispute is private in nature. The High Court should take a pragmatic view in the matter.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No. 555 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4579 of 2006) decided on 26.3.2008) also has discussed that the dispute is purely personal in nature and arose out of extensive business dealing and where there is no public policy involved, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise.

14. In view of above, considering the submission of learned counsels of both the contesting parties and observations of Apex Court as well as of this Court, in the opinion of the Court, the High Court has ample power under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report in which the parties have settled their disputes which are of private in nature and have no any grave impact on the society. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies are very precious which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of impugned First Information Report dated 01.02.2022, registered at F.I.R. / Case Crime No.0068 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, registered at Police Station - Madiyaon District - Lucknow are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 11.4.2023

Reena/-