High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56067-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1112 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rohit Kushwaha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Geeta Kushwaha,Sunil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- Amar Chandra,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Khusboo Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 24.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.672 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - Mauranipur, District- Jhansi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report. 3. Present matter was taken up on 22.1.2025 and this Court has proceeded to pass a detailed order to the following effect. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents, Mr. Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on the record. 3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 24.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.672 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2) (va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - Mauranipur, District- Jhansi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that qua the dispute in question, the parties have already settled the matter out of court. It is pressed that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. The joint affidavit is also brought on record. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another J.T. 2008(9) SC 192, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 and also in Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record. 6. In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involves private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed. 7. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal proceeding and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. 8. As it is informed that till date the police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the aforesaid Case Crime No.672 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - Mauranipur, District- Jhansi, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the settlement/compromise within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the investigating officer will produce the parties to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for verification of the said claim. It is also directed that the Magistrate concerned will record the statement of the parties concerned as to whether the terms and conditions if set out in the settlement/compromise had been fulfilled or not and submit a report before this Court on or before the date fixed in the matter without fail. 9. For a period of two months from today, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 24.12.2024. 10. List this matter on 17.02.2025 in the top ten cases of the additional cause list. " 4. In response thereof, Affidavit of Compliance dated 5.4.2025 filed by learned AGA is taken on record. Bare perusal of the same reveals that the parties have settled the matter amicably. 5. It is jointly submitted that the dispute has come to be amicably resolved before the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.Act), Jhansi, as such, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another J.T. 2008(9) SC 192, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 and also in Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. 6. 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." 7. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal proceeding and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
Decision
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No. 672 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - Mauranipur, District- Jhansi are quashed. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 16.4.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad