Naurang And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4660 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Naurang And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 February, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16556-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 172 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Naurang And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Monika Pal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanju Soni
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Ms. Monika Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Sanju Soni, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Sandeep Tripathi, learned State Law Officer for State respondents. The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

2. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 13.11.2024 being Case Crime No.0380 of 2024 under Section 305 (A), 115 (2) and 351 (2) BNS, P.S. Phaphund, Distt. Auraiya and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

3. It is contended that on account of some misconception of fact, the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioners. However, subsequently with the intervention of respected members of the family and the society, the parties have amicably settled their all disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other. The settlement agreement dated 11.12.2024 has also been brought on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Only in this backdrop, the Court has proceeded to pass the following interim order on 08.01.2025:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of some misconception of fact, the impugned first information report was lodged against the petitioners, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement dated 11.12.2024 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.- 2 to this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, the impugned first information report be quashed.

5. Matter requires consideration.

6. Issue notice to the respondent no. 4 returnable within ten days.

7. Learned A.G.A. may also seek instructions by the said date.

8. Put up this case as fresh on 20th January, 2025.

9. Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 13.11.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0380 of 2024, under Sections 305(A), 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Phaphund, District Auraiya."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that even though the compromise dated 11.12.2024 has adequately been informed to the Investigating Officer well in time but in arbitrary manner he has submitted chargesheet against the petitioners on 30.12.2024 under Section 115 (2), 351 (2) BNS. However, Section 305A has been deleted. She further submits that even if chargesheet has been forwarded to the competent court, the writ petition can be heard on merits vide judgement and order dated 29.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No(s).7273/2019 (Mamta Shailesh Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand).

5. Learned State Law Officer, on the instructions, states that as investigating was completed, the chargesheet was prepared on 30.12.2024 much prior to passing of the interim order dated 08.01.2025. Even Section 305A has also been dropped from the proceeding. Later on the order dated 8.1.2025 has also been informed to the Investigating Officer. He submits that some further time may be accorded so that he may place the appropriate instructions whether the chargesheet has been submitted to the competent court or not.

6. Learned counsel for the informant has also corroborated the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and states that the informant has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed.

7. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 11.12.2024, 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.

8. 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."

9. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide settlement agreement dated 11.12.2024, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

10. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of aforesaid Case Crime No.0380 of 2024 as well as all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Order Date :- 5.2.2025

SP/