Bablu And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 837 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bablu And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 12 May, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77187-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9484 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Bablu And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Bhadra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is taken on the record.

2. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents, Mr. Rajveer Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on the record.

3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of First Information Report dated 14.04.2025 in Case Crime No.0154 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in pursuant to the impugned First Information Report.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that so far as the dispute in question is concerned, both the parties have settled the same amicably by means of compromise dated 23.4.2025, wherein, they have come to an agreement to the effect that they do not wish to pursue the case in Case Crime No.0154 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly. Further, the respondent No.4 has also sent a letter dated 23.4.2025 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly to close the case in question on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submits that since the parties have already settled the matter, the instant First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents has also fairly submitted that as the matter is already settled and the interim order was accorded, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

7. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise dated 23.04.2025, 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.

8. 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."

9. The genesis of the dispute between the parties was of purely trivial in nature. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 23.4.2025, 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 14.04.2025 in Case Crime No.0154 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly are quashed.

Order Date :- 12.5.2025

Sachin

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