Allahabad High Court
Aasif vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 March, 2025
Bench: Rajiv Gupta, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40162-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3325 of 2025
Petitioner :- Aasif
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.Z.Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Asif
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the writ petition.
2. Short counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 & 4 today in Court, is taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, Shri Mohammad Asif, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4 and perused the material available on record.
4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 05.02.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0069 of 2025, under Sections 87, 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that respondent no.4- victim is a major girl, aged about 19 years and she had willingly gone to visit her friend's place and stayed there, however, under some misconception of fact, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner alleging therein that he had forcibly enticed away the victim with an intention to marry her, however subsequently, the victim returned back to her home and disclosed the true facts, consequently, a settlement agreement dated 24.02.2025 has been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that said settlement agreement has been drawn between the parties voluntarily out of their own free will and without any coercion or undue influence and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that in view of the said settlement agreement and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, the impugned FIR be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4 has also appeared and acknowledges the said compromise made between the parties. He has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.3 & 4 today in Court and in para 3, it has been categorically stated that impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioner under some misconception and now, the dispute between the parties has been resolved. Further in para 4, settlement agreement dated 24.02.2025 has been acknowledged. Further in para 5, it has been stated by both the parties that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, they do not want to further contest the proceedings and they have no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed by allowing the writ petition.
10. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts but has pointed out that during the course of investigation, Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S.S. has also been added.
11. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim is a major girl, aged about 19 years, who had willingly gone to her friend's house and stayed there, however, under some misconception, the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioner; the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled as evident from the settlement agreement dated 24.02.2025; respondent nos.3 & 4, by filing their personal affidavit, have stated that they have no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed by allowing the writ petition.
12. This Court is not unmindful of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of :-
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675.
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677.
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1.
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.
(vi) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
(vii) State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.
(viii) K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695.
13. Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein-above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the instant case, when the parties has amicably settled their dispute by making compromise.
15. Accordingly, the impugned FIR dated05.02.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0069 of 2025, under Sections 87, 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur, is quashed.
16. In view thereof, the instant writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 20.3.2025
Nadim
