High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197628-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22770 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tejram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Uma Nath Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the impugned FIR dated 30.01.2023, which is registered as Case Crime No.53 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Beta-2, District Greater Noida (Comissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar). 3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, entertained the writ petition vide order dated 12.12.2024 and has accorded as interim relief to the petitioner with following effect; "1. Shri Uma Nath Pandey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama along-with short counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.3 today in Court, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, Shri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of some misunderstanding, the impugned first information report was lodged against the petitioner, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement affidavit indicating therein that the compromise has been made between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, the impugned first information report be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has also appeared and acknowledges the said factum of compromise made between the parties. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the paragraph no.8 of the short counter affidavit, in which, it has been clearly stated by the respondent no.3 that he has no objection, if the first information report is quashed on the basis of the compromise made between the parties. 7. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. Learned counsel for the parties prays for and is granted three days' time to enable the parties to appear before this Court to verify the said compromise. 9. In view thereof, put up this case as fresh on 17.12.2024 before the appropriate Bench. 10. Till then, the petitioner shall not be arrested in pursuance of the impugned first information report dated 30.01.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0053 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Beta-2, District Greater Noida (Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar)."
Decision
4. In response to the aforesaid order, the petitioner namely Tejram son of Dalpat and informant Ishant Singh son of late Ravindra Singh Kasana appeared before the court and both are identified by their respective counsels. Both have made a categorical statement to the Court that the parties have already resolved the matter amicably in the civil proceeding and all the suits regarding property in dispute, were dismissed as withdrawn. The order passed by the competent court has also brought on record collectively as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, states that as the parties have already settled the dispute inter se between the private parties which is essentially civil in nature, the impugned first information is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the informant-respondent no.3 has no objection, in case the impugned first information is quashed. 7. Learned AGA submitted that in the instant matter, the police report under Section 173(2) read with Section 193(3) of BNSS has not been forwarded. 8. As it is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved and information has also been given to the concerned Superintendent of Police and adequate application is already moved by the informant on 08.11.2024 which is also brought on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, 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. 9. 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." 10. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments. 11. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 30.01.2023 registered as Case Crime No.53 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Beta-2, District Greater Noida (Comissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar) is quashed. Order Date :- 17.12.2024 A.Kr.