Allahabad High Court
Salman And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 5 March, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31020-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4114 of 2025
Petitioner :- Salman And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Shankar Pandey,Vishal Ohri
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Shri Shiv Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 08.02.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 0083 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) of the BNS and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Lohiyanagar, District Meerut and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
3. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the informant alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband - the petitioner No.1 and his family members after her marriage on 20.04.2024. She claims that her in-laws, including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and other relatives, demanded dowry and physically assaulted her when she refused to comply. The informant further alleges that when she became pregnant in October 2024, her husband and in-laws forced her to undergo an abortion by administering medication against her will. She was subsequently expelled from the matrimonial home with threats to her life.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the impugned FIR are false, baseless, and fabricated, made with a malicious intent to harass them. It is contended that there was no demand for dowry, and the informant was never subjected to physical or mental cruelty. He submits that the petitioner No.1 always treated the informant with dignity and respect. It is further stated that the delay of nearly four months in lodging the FIR raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the allegations. He highlights that the matter has been amicably settled between the informant and the petitioner, and a compromise affidavit dated 20.02.2025 was executed, wherein the informant expressed her willingness to live with her husband. Despite the compromise, the police have not considered her application for the cancellation of the FIR. He argues that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law and have been initiated solely to harass them. He lastly submits that the petitioners seek the quashing of the FIR and protection from any coercive action, emphasizing that no injury was sustained by the informant and that there is no credible evidence against them.
5. Learned counsel for the informant - respondent No.4 states that as the matrimonial dispute is already settled between the parties, the criminal proceeding is misuse of legal process and the informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is 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.
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, there is no need to verify the compromise as the learned counsel for the informant himself appeared and has no objection of quashing of the impugned FIR 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 First Information Report dated 08.02.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 0083 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Lohiyanagar, District Meerut are hereby quashed.
(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Order Date :- 5.3.2025
NLY
