Allahabad High Court
Arpit Tripathi And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 April, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53213-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17790 of 2024
Petitioner :- Arpit Tripathi And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Das Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satish Chandra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State- respondent.
2. While entertaining the instant petition, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 remitted the matter to the Mediation Centre of the High Court for settlement of the dispute amicably, as the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute.
3. In response to the said order, report of Mediation Center dated 19.02.2025 submitted by Registrar, AHCMCC with stipulation "Mediation Completed. Agreement enclosed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have resolved their dispute, as mediation is successful. He further submits that informant had filed an application under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar for dissolution of marriage and the next date fixed i.e. 19.08.2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court Kanpur Nagar. However during mediation parties have agreed to dissolution of their marriage with Rs. 35 lakh as permanent alimony that is to be paid by the petitioners in installment. He also submits that during mediation as a first installment petitioner has given a cheque of Rs. 17,50,000/- to the informant and petitioners are also agreed to give remaining amount at the time of next hearing before the Family Court. He further submits that as the parties have amicably resolved their dispute in terms of compromise dated 18.02.2025, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed other wise parties would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has given a nod to the said situation.
6. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 18.02.2025, duly verified by the parties and their counsels before the Mediation Centre, 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.
7. 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."
8. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide settlement agreement dated 18.02.2025 produced by the Registrar, AHCMCC vide letter dated 19.02.2025, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
9. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.352 of 2024 under Sections 85, 115(2), 76, 64, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hanumant Vihar, District South (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar) are quashed.
Order Date :- 10.4.2025
Bhanu
(Prashant Kumar,J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.)
