Nikhil Agarwal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 685 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nikhil Agarwal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73679-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9101 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Nikhil Agarwal And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Shubham Prakash Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents, Modh. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on the record.

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 07.09.2024 registered as case crime No.188 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. - Lohamandi, District- Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in pursuant to the impugned First Information Report.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no complicity in the instant case. The whole prosecution story is totally false and frivolous and the petitioners have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive and mala-fide intention. The impugned First Information Report is challenged precisely on the ground that the dispute between the parties is purely of matrimonial in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 got married on 28.11.2021 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Agra. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both husband and wife have been living separately since 19.12.2021 as there is no possibility of their living together as husband and wife on account of temperamental differences and efforts for reconciliation and resolution of differences made by them, their family members and well wishers have failed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.5 has preferred a petition under Section 13-B(2) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955") bearing HMA No.385 of 2025 (Shivika Agarwal Vs. Nikhil Agarwal) for dissolution of marriage before the Principal Judge, Family Court, South, New Delhi and the same has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this backdrop submits that as the parties have already settled their dispute by means of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 12.03.2025, therefore, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the matter and the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State-responsents has also fairly submitted that as the matter is already settled, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending for consideration and the impugned FIR may be quashed.

6. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage and the same has come to an end by means of the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2025, 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. The genesis of the dispute between the parties was of purely matrimonial in nature. From the perusal of the record it transpires that petitioners have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, dowry articles and maintenance and the there is no chance for their resumption of normal marital relationship in future, since it will be futile to continue the marital relationship and as such, they have decided to dissolve the marriage. Record in question also reveals that petitioners are unable to live together and there would be no chance in any manner whatsoever for reunion of both the petitioners and efforts were made to reunite them but the same could not be materialized. Further, respondent No.5 has preferred a petition under Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955 bearing HMA No.385 of 2025 (Shivika Agarwal Vs. Nikhil Agarwal) for dissolution of marriage before the Principal Judge, Family Court, South, New Delhi and the same has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2025. The relevant takeaway from the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 12.03.2025 is reproduced hereinunder:-

"(4) We have amicably resolved all out disputes pertaining to this marriage including stridhan, permanent alimony, dowry articles and maintenance (past, present & future) as per petition.

5. We have also agreed that we will not initiate any litigation or will not raise any claim in future against each other and the family members and relatives of each other."

9. Therefore, under the changed circumstances, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

10. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 07.09.2023 registered as case crime No.188 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S.- Lohamandi, District- Agra are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 7.5.2025

Sachin

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)