Allahabad High Court
Vishal Verma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 February, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25772-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23033 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vishal Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sikandar Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Sikandar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Shri Vijendra Pal holding brief of Shri Bali Ram, learned counsel for the informant.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated27.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.1066 of 2024 under Sections 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar.
3. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2024 has proceeded to pass the following order:
"Counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute has been settled between the petitioner and the informant.
Counsel for the informant has filed short counter affidavit acknowledging that there is a settlement between the parties.
List again as fresh on 10.02.2025.
In the meantime, the parties will appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar/Elaka Magistrate on 22.01.2025, who will record statement of the parties and send a report in this regard to this Court by the next date fixed.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the F.I.R. dated 27.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.1066 of 2024 under Sections 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar."
4. In response to the order dated16.12.2024, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar has submitted a report dated 23.01.2025 whereby the compromise dated 07.12.2024 has been duly verified. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parties involved have reached a mutual compromise and executed a joint affidavit on 22.01.2025, agreeing to withdraw cases filed against each other. He further states that since the parties have already settled the matter in light of the settlement agreement entered into on 07.12.2024, the instant First Information Report is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed. Learned AGA has also fairly submitted that as the matter is already entertained and the interim order was accorded, the impugned FIR may be quashed.
6. As it is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved 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.
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, 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 of First Information Report dated27.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.1066 of 2024 under Sections 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025
NLY
