High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Garg, holding brief of Sri Gayyoor Ali learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, learned A.G.A. for State respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated 17.3.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0137 of 2025, under Sections 333, 109(1), 352, 351(2) of BNS- 2023, at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

4. This Court vide order dated 22.4.2025 has proceeded to pass the following order: " 1. Sri Gayyoor Ali, Advocate filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Gayyoor Ali, learned counsel for the informant.

3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 17.3.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0137 of 2025, under Sections 333, 109(1), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Kairana, District Shamli.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have entered into a compromise and it is a no injury case. Meanwhile, parties have settled their dispute through compromise dated 9.4.2025. The settlement/compromise is brought on record as Annexure 2 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.

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

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. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court may ensure that the directions issued by this Court may be complied with and a report be submitted by the next date.

9. Connect and list along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6526 of 2025 on 5.5.2025 as fresh in top ten cases. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report. "

5. In response to the order dated 22.4.2025, a report dated 20.4.2025 is submitted by Judicial Magistrate, Shamli whereby the compromise dated 9.4.2025 has been duly verified. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the parties, who are husband and wife, reached a mutual compromise and executed a joint affidavit on 9.4.2025, agreeing to withdraw cases filed against each other. He further states that since the parties have already settled the matter in light of the settlement agreement entered into on 9.4.2025, the instant First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed. Learned AGA has also fairly submitted that as the matter is already entered and the interim order was accorded, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

7. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise dated 9.4.2025, duly verified by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, 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 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. between

8. Hon'ble the 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, 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. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; the parties, "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."

9. The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 9.4.2025, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

10. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 17.3.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0137 of 2025, under Sections 333, 109(1), 352, 351(2) of BNS- 2023, at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025/Mukesh MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Garg, holding brief of Sri Gayyoor Ali learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, learned A.G.A. for State respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated 17.3.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0137 of 2025, under Sections 333, 109(1), 352, 351(2) of BNS- 2023, at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

4. This Court vide order dated 22.4.2025 has proceeded to pass the following order: " 1. Sri Gayyoor Ali, Advocate filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Gayyoor Ali, learned counsel for the informant.

3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 17.3.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0137 of 2025, under Sections 333, 109(1), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Kairana, District Shamli.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have entered into a compromise and it is a no injury case. Meanwhile, parties have settled their dispute through compromise dated 9.4.2025. The settlement/compromise is brought on record as Annexure 2 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.

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

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. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court may ensure that the directions issued by this Court may be complied with and a report be submitted by the next date.

9. Connect and list along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6526 of 2025 on 5.5.2025 as fresh in top ten cases. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report. "

5. In response to the order dated 22.4.2025, a report dated 20.4.2025 is submitted by Judicial Magistrate, Shamli whereby the compromise dated 9.4.2025 has been duly verified. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the parties, who are husband and wife, reached a mutual compromise and executed a joint affidavit on 9.4.2025, agreeing to withdraw cases filed against each other. He further states that since the parties have already settled the matter in light of the settlement agreement entered into on 9.4.2025, the instant First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed. Learned AGA has also fairly submitted that as the matter is already entered and the interim order was accorded, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

7. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise dated 9.4.2025, duly verified by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, 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 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. between

8. Hon'ble the 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, 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. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; the parties, "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."

9. The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 9.4.2025, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

10. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 17.3.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0137 of 2025, under Sections 333, 109(1), 352, 351(2) of BNS- 2023, at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025/Mukesh MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad