Mohd. Imran And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6412 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Imran And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 March, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42971-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16278 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohd. Imran And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Isarat Ali,Subhash Chandra Mishra
 
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 dated04.08.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0503 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj 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 12.09.2024 had passed detailed order with the following effect:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that matrimonial dispute is in the genesis of this case and there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that this case may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad so that the litigants may have a chance to settle their dispute on their own terms through mediation.

4. The Court is satisfied on the basis of record and the submissions made before it that the nature of litigation is such that the chances to resolve the matter through process of conciliation do exist and an attempt ought to be made to explore that possibility.

5. Accordingly, the matter is being referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The petitioners will deposit Rs.20,000/- within four weeks at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. In case the amount is deposited, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad will issue notices to both the parties returnable within a period of two weeks. Out of the said amount, Rs.15,000/- will be paid to the respondent no.4 for subsistence and to meet out the expenses. The Mediator is allowed two months' time to find out possible solution of the dispute between the parties and send his report to the Court regarding outcome of the mediation.

6. List this case on 19.11.2024 before the appropriate Bench along with report of the Mediator.

7. Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 04.08.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0503 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, provided the petitioners file the receipt of deposit of amount as directed above along with the present order.

8. It is made clear that in case of default in depositing the amount as ordered above or non-participation of the petitioners in the mediation proceedings, the interim stay order shall stand automatically vacated.

9. This case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard with this Bench. "

4. As the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute, the coordinate bench vide order dated 12.09.2024 had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court and as per the report submitted by Registrar/ In-charge, AHCMCC dated 28.01.2025, the parties have already settled the matter amicably in terms of the settlement agreement dated 25.01.2025.

5. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 25.01.2025, 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 dated 25.01.2025, 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 04.08.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0503 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj are quashed.

Order Date :- 24.3.2025

NLY

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)