High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for State respondents.

2. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation Section 27/30 Arms Act has been added against the petitioner on 07.04.2025 and as such, he may be permitted to make necessary amendment/correction in the relief clause of the writ petition.

4. The prayer made is accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment/ correction in the relief clause of the writ petition.

5. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned FIR dated 30.03.2025 being Case Crime No.098 of 2025 under Section 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109 BNS and Section 27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Kishni, Distt. Mainpuri and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR.

6. On the matter being taken up on 30.04.2025, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 30.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 098 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Kishni, District Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, as the petitioners are innocent and the allegations made in the FIR are exaggerated. He further submits that the compromise has been duly forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Mainpuri, and a copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Considering the factual situation, 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 alleged settlement/compromise had been fulfilled or not and submit a report before this Court on or before the next date fixed without fail. The Registrar Compliance is directed to ensure strict compliance of this order.

6. List this matter again in top ten cases on 14.05.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation."

7. In response to the aforesaid order, the Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Court No.1/ Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri has sent a report dated 12.05.2025 intimating therein that after taking statements of all the parties, the compromise has been verified. The informant has stated that all the differences between the parties have been sorted out and he wants to close the criminal proceeding.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that till date, no charge sheet has been submitted in the matter.

9. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise, 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.

10. 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."

11. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably through compromise, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

12. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.098 of 2025 under Section 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109 BNS and Section 27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Kishni, Distt. Mainpuri are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for State respondents.

2. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation Section 27/30 Arms Act has been added against the petitioner on 07.04.2025 and as such, he may be permitted to make necessary amendment/correction in the relief clause of the writ petition.

4. The prayer made is accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment/ correction in the relief clause of the writ petition.

5. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned FIR dated 30.03.2025 being Case Crime No.098 of 2025 under Section 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109 BNS and Section 27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Kishni, Distt. Mainpuri and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR.

6. On the matter being taken up on 30.04.2025, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 30.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 098 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Kishni, District Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, as the petitioners are innocent and the allegations made in the FIR are exaggerated. He further submits that the compromise has been duly forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Mainpuri, and a copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Considering the factual situation, 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 alleged settlement/compromise had been fulfilled or not and submit a report before this Court on or before the next date fixed without fail. The Registrar Compliance is directed to ensure strict compliance of this order.

6. List this matter again in top ten cases on 14.05.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation."

7. In response to the aforesaid order, the Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Court No.1/ Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri has sent a report dated 12.05.2025 intimating therein that after taking statements of all the parties, the compromise has been verified. The informant has stated that all the differences between the parties have been sorted out and he wants to close the criminal proceeding.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that till date, no charge sheet has been submitted in the matter.

9. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise, 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.

10. 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."

11. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably through compromise, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

12. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.098 of 2025 under Section 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109 BNS and Section 27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Kishni, Distt. Mainpuri are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad