Allahabad High Court
Digvijay Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 August, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Arun Kumar Deshwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157633-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10938 of 2023
Petitioner :- Digvijay Pandey And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Chaurasiya
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ratish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Vivek Dubey, State Law Officer appearing for the respondents and Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the informant.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned FIR dated 23.11.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 420 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhamaura, District Bareilly.
3. By drawing attention to page 70 of the paper book learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other co-accused person has already been granted indulgence by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18787 of 2022 (Juganu Mishra vs. State of UP and 3 others) and therefore, present petition may also be disposed of in the same terms.
4. The said judgement dated 12.12.2022 is quoted hereinunder:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Shri Sandeep Kumar Chaurasiya appears for the informant.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 23.11.2021 being Case Crime No.420 of 2021 under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhamaura, Distt. Bareilly and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties has already been resolved amicably out of court vide compromise deed dated 11.12.2022. The compromise deed dated 11.12.2022 is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the informant has also supported the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that as per the compromise deed dated 11.12.2022 the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.
It is jointly submitted that once the dispute between the parties have already been resolved amicably under the compromise deed dated 11.12.2022, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the 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. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 16.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8510 of 2022 (Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein it is observed that 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.
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."
Learned AGA has also submitted that once the dispute has already been settled between the parties amicably, the investigating officer may be directed to proceed further in accordance with law and in view of compromise deed dated 11.12.2022.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the judgments cited at Bar, we are of the opinion that once the dispute between the parties have already been resolved amicably under the compromise deed dated 11.12.2022, pending proceedings would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the Investigating Officer to proceed further in accordance with law and in view of compromise deed dated 11.12.2022.
For a period of two months, the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to impugned FIR, provided he cooperates with the investigation in question."
5. Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18787 of 2022 (Juganu Mishra vs. State of UP and 3 others) as quoted above.
Order Date :- 7.8.2023
Abhishek
