Allahabad High Court
Bharat And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 March, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42947-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10343 of 2024
Petitioner :- Bharat And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated02.06.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0139 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 504, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Dilari, District-Moradabad and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
3. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19.06.2024 had passed detailed order with the following effect:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 02.06.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0139 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 504, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Dilari, District-Moradabad, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
4. Issue notice to the opposite party no.3, returnable at an early date. Steps may be taken within a week.
5. Taking into account the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court, out of which Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to respondent no.3 for her appearance before the Mediation Centre and Rs.5000/- shall go to the Mediation Centre as mediation fee.
6. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that after deposit of such amount, by the petitioners, it shall issue notice to the parties fixing some date for mediation and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
7. List after expiry of aforesaid period before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.
8. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in the above mentioned case.
9. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter."
4. As the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute, the coordinate bench vide order dated19.06.2024 had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court and as per the report submitted by Registrar/ In-charge, AHCMCC dated 23.11.2024, the parties have already settled the matter amicably in terms of the settlement agreement dated 08.11.2024.
5. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated08.11.2024, 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.
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 vide settlement agreement dated08.11.2024, 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 dated 02.06.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0139 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 504, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Dilari, District-Moradabad are quashed.
Order Date :- 24.3.2025
NLY
(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
