Allahabad High Court
Pradyum Gupta And 5 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 10 March, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35130-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8389 of 2024
Petitioner :- Pradyum Gupta And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Faizan Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- Abdul Majeed,G.A.,Sufia Saba
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Abdul Majeed, 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 dated 24.03.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 377 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Kanpur Nagar.
3. The coordinate Bench vide order dated 22.5.2024 has referred the matter for mediation as it has been pressed that there is a genuine matrimonial issue in respect of which mediation ought to be tried first before proceeding with criminal investigation as it has the potential of disturbing the marital life for all times to come.
4. In response to the order dated 22.5.2024, a report dated 18.10.2024 is submitted by Registrar AHCMCC annexing therein settlement agreement dated 17.10.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parties, who are husband and wife, have mutually decided to live separately and dissolve their marriage in the light of the interim settlement dated 12.09.2024. He further states that since the parties have already settled the matter in light of the settlement agreement entered into on 17.10.2024, 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.
6. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement dated 17.10.2024, duly verified by the mediator, 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 B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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. The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 09.01.2025, 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 First Information Report dated 24.03.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 377 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Kanpur Nagar are quashed.
(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Order Date :- 10.3.2025
A.K.Srivastava
