The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in

Petitioner :- Smt. Asha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Beerendra Pratap Singh,Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Narendra Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is praying to quash the F.I.R. dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime no.14 of 2025 under section 87 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station-Sakeet, District-Etah.

3. While entertaining the instant writ petition, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed following order on 06.02.2025: "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Narendra Kumar on behalf of respondent no. 4 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2025, under section 87 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station Sakeet, District Etah.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to produce the victim before this Court on 10.02.2025.

5. Put up this matter as fresh on 10.02.2025 showing the name of Sri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, as counsel for the respondents.

6. Till the next date of listing, or till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 193(3) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to co-operation in the ongoing investigation."

4. In response to aforesaid order, both the petitioners are present before this Court, who have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Both stated that they have already solemnized marriage. Petitioner no.1 submitted that at no point of time, petitioner no.2 has eloped her. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no.4 have also no objection to the aforesaid.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; (iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

6. In view of aforesaid facts of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Narayan (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime no.14 of 2025 under section 87 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station-Sakeet, District-Etah is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Manish Himwan

Petitioner :- Smt. Asha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Beerendra Pratap Singh,Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Narendra Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is praying to quash the F.I.R. dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime no.14 of 2025 under section 87 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station-Sakeet, District-Etah.

3. While entertaining the instant writ petition, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed following order on 06.02.2025: "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Narendra Kumar on behalf of respondent no. 4 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2025, under section 87 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station Sakeet, District Etah.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to produce the victim before this Court on 10.02.2025.

5. Put up this matter as fresh on 10.02.2025 showing the name of Sri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, as counsel for the respondents.

6. Till the next date of listing, or till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 193(3) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to co-operation in the ongoing investigation."

4. In response to aforesaid order, both the petitioners are present before this Court, who have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Both stated that they have already solemnized marriage. Petitioner no.1 submitted that at no point of time, petitioner no.2 has eloped her. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no.4 have also no objection to the aforesaid.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; (iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

6. In view of aforesaid facts of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Narayan (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime no.14 of 2025 under section 87 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station-Sakeet, District-Etah is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Manish Himwan