High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.128 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and Section 66-D I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008, P.S. Cyber Crime Varanasi, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no complicity in the instant case. The whole prosecution story is totally false and frivolous and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature. He apprised that parties have amicably settled the matter out of Court, part payment has been ensured in favour of informant and qua the remaining balance, a draft of Rs.3 lacs is ready and in case permission is granted the same would be handed over to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the informant apprised to the Court that informant is present in the Court and he has duly verified her. The aforesaid draft has been duly handed over to the informant in the Court with due endorsement. On the instructions, learned counsel for the informant states that the informant has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

5. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved, 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.

6. 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."

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.Nil of 2025 (Rikhab Birani & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another) arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8592 of 2024 had strongly deprecated the initiation of the criminal proceeding, wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex-facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. The Apex Court allowed the appeal with a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State with further observation "in spite of repeated judgments/orders of this Court, we are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs being made the subject matter of criminal proceedings by filing chargesheets, etc.". While passing the judgment in Rikhab Birani's case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has considered in threadbare the judgment in V. Y. Jose and another v. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 3 SCC 78; also considered Section 420 IPC and reiterated the earlier judgments passed by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and recent judgement in Lalit Chaturvedi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2024 SCC Online SC 171.

8. Since the dispute is purely civil in nature and the parties have already settled the same amicably, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

9. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 21.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.128 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and Section 66-D I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008, P.S. Cyber Crime Varanasi, District Varanasi are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 A. Pandey ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.128 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and Section 66-D I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008, P.S. Cyber Crime Varanasi, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no complicity in the instant case. The whole prosecution story is totally false and frivolous and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature. He apprised that parties have amicably settled the matter out of Court, part payment has been ensured in favour of informant and qua the remaining balance, a draft of Rs.3 lacs is ready and in case permission is granted the same would be handed over to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the informant apprised to the Court that informant is present in the Court and he has duly verified her. The aforesaid draft has been duly handed over to the informant in the Court with due endorsement. On the instructions, learned counsel for the informant states that the informant has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

5. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved, 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.

6. 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."

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.Nil of 2025 (Rikhab Birani & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another) arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8592 of 2024 had strongly deprecated the initiation of the criminal proceeding, wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex-facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. The Apex Court allowed the appeal with a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State with further observation "in spite of repeated judgments/orders of this Court, we are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs being made the subject matter of criminal proceedings by filing chargesheets, etc.". While passing the judgment in Rikhab Birani's case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has considered in threadbare the judgment in V. Y. Jose and another v. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 3 SCC 78; also considered Section 420 IPC and reiterated the earlier judgments passed by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and recent judgement in Lalit Chaturvedi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2024 SCC Online SC 171.

8. Since the dispute is purely civil in nature and the parties have already settled the same amicably, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

9. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 21.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.128 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and Section 66-D I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008, P.S. Cyber Crime Varanasi, District Varanasi are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 A. Pandey ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad