Allahabad High Court
Sumit @ Cheeku vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174108-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19019 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sumit @ Cheeku
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayank Prakash Rawat
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Surender Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA for State respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 17.08.2024 being Case Crime No.0511 of 2024 under Section 191 (2), 126 (2), 115, 351 (3) BNS, P.S. Sikandra Nagar (Commissionerate Agra), Distt. Barabanki and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
3. On the matter being taken up on 23.10.2024, the Court has proceeded to pass the following interim order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, Shri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and respondent no.4 are cousins and on account of certain misconception and misunderstandings, the impugned FIR was lodged by respondent no.4, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next drawn the attention of this Court to settlement agreement dated 14.10.2024 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has also appeared and has acknowledged the said compromise, however, he prays for and is granted ten days' time to file an affidavit on behalf of respondent no.4.
6. Put up, as fresh, on 06.11.2024.
7. Till then, the petitioner shall not be arrested in pursuance of FIR dated 17.08.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 511 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115, 351(3) BNS 2023, Police Station Sikandra, Nagar (Commissionerate Agra), District Agra."
4. In response to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for informant-respondent no.4 has submitted that the parties are closed relatives. The informant is cousin of the petitioner. Under some misconception and misunderstanding the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. The parties have already settled their dispute amicably out of Court vide compromise dated 14.10.2024.
5. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise dated 14.10.2024, 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.
6. 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."
7. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 14.10.2024, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
8. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings ofCase Crime No.0511 of 2024 under Section 191 (2), 126 (2), 115, 351 (3) BNS, P.S. Sikandra Nagar (Commissionerate Agra), Distt. Barabanki are quashed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2024
SP/
