High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 25.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report."

3. Present matter was taken up on 31.1.2025 and the Court has proceeded to pass a detailed interim order with following observations. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some tiny dispute has taken place between the parties for parking area and the same has already been settled 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 settlement/compromise is brought on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the informant acknowledged the agreement of compromise/settlement and states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. states that in the instant matter police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the matter.

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. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise/settlement within a week 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 compromise/settlement had been fulfilled or not and submit a report by the next date through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.

9. Put up as fresh on 18.02.2025. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report."

4. In response thereof, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura has submitted detailed report dated 6.2.2025. 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura, 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.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 25.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report."

3. Present matter was taken up on 31.1.2025 and the Court has proceeded to pass a detailed interim order with following observations. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some tiny dispute has taken place between the parties for parking area and the same has already been settled 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 settlement/compromise is brought on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the informant acknowledged the agreement of compromise/settlement and states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. states that in the instant matter police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the matter.

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. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise/settlement within a week 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 compromise/settlement had been fulfilled or not and submit a report by the next date through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.

9. Put up as fresh on 18.02.2025. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report."

4. In response thereof, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura has submitted detailed report dated 6.2.2025. 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura, 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.