Allahabad High Court
Ashish Kumar (Sub Inspector) And ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 May, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90866-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3666 of 2025
Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar (Sub Inspector) And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Shukla
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.4, Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-1 for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned first information report dated 21.10.2024, registered as Case Crime No.539 of 2024, under Sections 308(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
3. On the earlier occasion, while taking cognizance of the matter, this Court was apprised that a compromise had been arrived at between the petitioners and the informant, signifying an amicable settlement of the dispute. Taking into consideration the said development, and with a view to ascertain its genuineness, this Court vide its order dated 13.05.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise. A direction was also issued to the Investigating Officer to present the parties before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording their statements. The relevant observations of the Court in the said order are extracted below for ready reference and contextual appreciation:-
"1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.539 of 2024, under Sections 308(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court and have settled their dispute through compromise dated 01.02.2025. The settlement/compromise is brought on record as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Meanwhile, the petitioners are not pressing any interim relief as they are already bailed out by the competent court. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another J.T. 2008(9) SC 192, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 and also in Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
5. Learned counsel for the informant acknowledged the agreement of compromise/settlement and states that the informant is not willing to press the matter and has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.
6. In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involves private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
7. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal proceeding and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise/settlement within a week from today. Thereafter, the investigating officer will produce the parties to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for verification of the said claim. It is also directed that the Magistrate concerned will record the statement of the parties concerned as to whether the terms and conditions if set out in the compromise/settlement has been fulfilled or not. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court may ensure that the directions issued by this Court may be complied with and a report be submitted by the next date.
9. List this again in the top ten cases on 27.5.2025.
10. Interim order, if any, stands extended till the next date of listing."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the parties appeared before the Investigating Officer and subsequently before the competent Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, vide order dated 17.05.2025 verified the said compromise. The compromise verification report dated 17.05.2025, duly verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, is on record.
5. Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.4, Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-1 for the State-respondents states that settlement/compromise is duly verified and they have no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the parties, in one voice, have submitted that the dispute arose from a personal misunderstanding and has since been resolved amicably through the aforementioned settlement agreement. It is their collective submission that the continuation of criminal proceedings in such a scenario would serve no meaningful purpose and would, in fact, amount to misuse of the legal process. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and the decision of this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8510 of 2022, decided on 16.09.2022).
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels, perused the pleadings, and examined the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not bound by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, especially where the offence is private in nature and does not involve any element of public harm or societal concern.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, civil transactions, financial dealings, and other matters where the dispute is essentially personal and does not affect public interest, the Court should adopt a pragmatic and restorative approach, prioritizing reconciliation and restoration of peace over punitive proceedings. However, the Court also drew a clear line that such power should not be exercised in cases involving heinous offences or crimes with grave impact on society.
9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the FIR in question stems from a private and interpersonal dispute, devoid of any serious criminality or public harm. The parties have expressed genuine willingness to put an end to their discord and have entered into a written compromise duly verified before the appropriate forum. There is no allegation of coercion, deceit, or fraud in the execution of the compromise.
10. Moreover, the renowned Latin maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium ? meaning "it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation" ? aptly underscores the necessity of finality in legal proceedings. This principle was emphatically upheld by this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P., reaffirming that precious judicial time and investigative resources must not be wasted on cases that have lost their adversarial essence and where the likelihood of conviction is minimal. It has been rightly emphasized that the justice delivery system should prioritize matters of substantive public importance rather than being mired in private disputes that no longer present any genuine grievance.
11. In view of the aforementioned facts, legal position, and the spirit of reconciliation demonstrated by the parties, this Court is of the firm view that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings, thereby preserving judicial resources and preventing unnecessary hardship to the parties.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The first information report dated 21.10.2024, registered as Case Crime No.539 of 2024, under Sections 308(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.
13. The interim protection granted to the petitioners, vide earlier orders of this Court, stands confirmed.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Order Date :- 27.5.2025/VKG
