Shamsher And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 968 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shamsher And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 May, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78594-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9112 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Shamsher And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Shiromani Yadav
 
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.-I for the State-respondents and Shri Ajeet Singh Maurya holding brief of Shri Kirshna Kant Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, who has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated17-03-2025 registered as Case Crime No.48 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 110 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

3. According to the impugned FIR, on 16-03-2025 at approximately 5:00 PM, the informant along with his 2-year-old daughter visited the shop of petitioner No.1 to purchase some articles. A verbal altercation ensued between the informant and petitioner No. 1, following which petitioner No. 1's son Kasim allegedly began abusing the informant. When the informant objected, another son of petitioner No. 1 named Yunus allegedly assaulted the informant with sharp-edged weapons, causing injuries. The informant's wife and mother, upon arriving at the scene and inquiring about the incident, were also allegedly assaulted by the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, is based on entirely false allegations and warrants quashing. The learned counsel points out several discrepancies that render the FIR unsustainable in the eyes of law. Firstly, there exists an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident occurred on 16-03-2025 at 5:00 PM, but the FIR was registered on 17-03-2025 at 2:30 PM, despite the police station being merely 12 kilometers from the place of occurrence. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise has been reached between the parties, evidenced by a duly executed compromise deed (Annexure No. 4), wherein the informant and his family members have explicitly stated their unwillingness to proceed with the case against the petitioners. Furthermore, the informant along with his wife and mother have submitted applications to the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal on 25-04-2025, accompanied by notarized affidavits (collectively marked as Annexure No. 5), requesting that the case be expunged based on the compromise. The learned counsel submits that despite these developments, the investigating officer has neither filed a final report nor expunged the names of the petitioners. The learned counsel contends that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident, and no concrete evidence exists against the petitioners. He submits that and as the alleged offences are punishable upto terms of seven years. Moreover, the petitioners are respectable members of society with no criminal history, yet they face the constant threat of arrest. The learned counsel emphasizes that in light of the compromise between the parties, with no pending issues between them, and considering the absence of any prima facie case against the petitioners, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the informant files a counter affidavit and states that the matter has been compromised between the parties and he has no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed. Learned AGA has also 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).

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. In the present case, it is evident from the record that 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The FIR dated 17-03-2025 registered as Case Crime No.48 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 110 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

12. The interim protection granted to the petitioners, vide earlier orders of this Court, stands confirmed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

NLY

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