High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Kashyap @ Kiran And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S. Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents, Shri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 31.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 41 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 131, 89 B.N.S. at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. The impugned First Information Report was lodged by the informant alleging that on 30.01.2025 at approximately 7:30 PM, the petitioners along with four other accused persons collectively assaulted and verbally abused the informant. The informant claims to have sustained various injuries including specific allegations that the accused persons struck her stomach with a lock and attacked her with an iron bangle. Subsequently, the informant was medically examined on the same day, and based on the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements under Section 180 BNSS from the informant and her husband. After further investigation and obtaining the statement from Dr. Ritika Singh, the Investigating Officer added Section 89 BNS to the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute through a compromise dated 06.03.2025 and are now peacefully living as neighbors. It is further submitted that the dispute originally arose regarding drainage issues with no prior enmity or malicious intent on part of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all sections invoked in the FIR are compoundable offenses except the subsequently added Section 89 BNS. Despite the compromise, when the parties approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, their request for acknowledging the compromise was declined. The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasizes that petitioners are law-abiding citizens with no prior criminal history, and the police are continuously visiting their residence attempting to arrest them, which is causing undue harassment. It is also highlighted that the investigation is still ongoing with no charge-sheet filed thus far. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed.

6. As it is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 31.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 41 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 131, 89 B.N.S. at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Kashyap @ Kiran And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S. Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents, Shri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 31.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 41 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 131, 89 B.N.S. at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. The impugned First Information Report was lodged by the informant alleging that on 30.01.2025 at approximately 7:30 PM, the petitioners along with four other accused persons collectively assaulted and verbally abused the informant. The informant claims to have sustained various injuries including specific allegations that the accused persons struck her stomach with a lock and attacked her with an iron bangle. Subsequently, the informant was medically examined on the same day, and based on the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements under Section 180 BNSS from the informant and her husband. After further investigation and obtaining the statement from Dr. Ritika Singh, the Investigating Officer added Section 89 BNS to the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute through a compromise dated 06.03.2025 and are now peacefully living as neighbors. It is further submitted that the dispute originally arose regarding drainage issues with no prior enmity or malicious intent on part of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all sections invoked in the FIR are compoundable offenses except the subsequently added Section 89 BNS. Despite the compromise, when the parties approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, their request for acknowledging the compromise was declined. The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasizes that petitioners are law-abiding citizens with no prior criminal history, and the police are continuously visiting their residence attempting to arrest them, which is causing undue harassment. It is also highlighted that the investigation is still ongoing with no charge-sheet filed thus far. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed.

6. As it is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 31.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 41 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 131, 89 B.N.S. at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad