High Court

2. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neetesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.3 and Ms. Divya Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 12.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.612 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS, P.S. Barra, District- Kairana, District-Shamli on the basis of compromise and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

4. While entertaining the writ petition, a Coordinate Bench has passed following order on 19.02.2025:- "1. Sri Neetesh Kumar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama alongwith affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3 today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neetesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Respondent No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and on account of family dispute, there has been quarrel between husband and wife and the impugned FIR was lodged, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the family and the society, parties have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted one week time to file the settlement-agreement.

5. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. In view thereof, since Respondent No. 3 is an illiterate lady and the prayer is for quashing the FIR under Section 109 of B.N.S. Act and other allied offences, as such, we deem it fit to direct the counsel for the respondents to ensure the presence of victim before this Court.

7. Put up this writ petition as fresh on 24.2.2025 before the appropriate Bench.

8. Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of FIR dated 12.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 612 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., P.S. Kairana, District- Shamli."

5. In pursuance of aforesaid order, the settlement/compromise agreement dated 19.02.2025 has been filed along with supplementary affidavit. Petitioner no.1 and informant/respondent no.3 have turned up before this Court, who have duly been identified by their respective counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the informant fairly states that dispute between the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and he has no objection, in case, the impugned FIR is quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. states that till date the police report has not been submitted in the present matter and she has also no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed in terms of compromise.

8. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved and as such, the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble 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.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC, there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned First Information Report dated 12.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.612 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS, P.S. Barra, District-Kairana, District-Shamli as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Manish Himwan

2. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neetesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.3 and Ms. Divya Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 12.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.612 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS, P.S. Barra, District- Kairana, District-Shamli on the basis of compromise and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

4. While entertaining the writ petition, a Coordinate Bench has passed following order on 19.02.2025:- "1. Sri Neetesh Kumar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama alongwith affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3 today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neetesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Respondent No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and on account of family dispute, there has been quarrel between husband and wife and the impugned FIR was lodged, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the family and the society, parties have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted one week time to file the settlement-agreement.

5. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. In view thereof, since Respondent No. 3 is an illiterate lady and the prayer is for quashing the FIR under Section 109 of B.N.S. Act and other allied offences, as such, we deem it fit to direct the counsel for the respondents to ensure the presence of victim before this Court.

7. Put up this writ petition as fresh on 24.2.2025 before the appropriate Bench.

8. Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of FIR dated 12.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 612 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., P.S. Kairana, District- Shamli."

5. In pursuance of aforesaid order, the settlement/compromise agreement dated 19.02.2025 has been filed along with supplementary affidavit. Petitioner no.1 and informant/respondent no.3 have turned up before this Court, who have duly been identified by their respective counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the informant fairly states that dispute between the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and he has no objection, in case, the impugned FIR is quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. states that till date the police report has not been submitted in the present matter and she has also no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed in terms of compromise.

8. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved and as such, the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble 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.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC, there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned First Information Report dated 12.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.612 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS, P.S. Barra, District-Kairana, District-Shamli as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Manish Himwan