Raghukul Upadhyay @ Vikash And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 36880 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Raghukul Upadhyay @ Vikash And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 November, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176658-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17204 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Raghukul Upadhyay @ Vikash And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava,Smt. Priyanka Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jalaj Singh,Satya Nisth Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Satya Nisth Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Umesh Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.5.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No.170 of 2024 under sections 147, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly in terms of the compromise dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition). The petitioners have also prayed that they be not arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

3. Vide order dated 24.9.2024, the coordinate Bench has proceeded to observe as follows:

"1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.5.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No.170 of 2024 under sections 147, 324, 325m 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly. The petitioners have also prayed that they be not arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the matter could be brought to an end when the parties enter into a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a compromise had been entered into which is at page 58 of the writ petition.

3. The parties may now appear before the Investigating Officer for the verification of the original compromise. The report be submitted by the Investigating Officer by the next date of listing.

4. List this case on 4.11.2024 as fresh. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

5. The respondent no.3 is represented by Sri Satya Nishth Dwivedi, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry. "

4. In response to the order dated 24.9.2024, learned AGA has placed the detailed instructions by the I.O. and states that verification of original compromise is done in the instant matter and now there is no dispute between the parties.

6. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement dated 13.09.2024, therefore, 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.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 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."

6. The present dispute has come to an end under an amicable settlement as such, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid dictum.

7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.170 of 2024, under sections 147, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly are quashed.

Order Date :- 11.11.2024

A.K.Srivastava