High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90637-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8506 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rafeeq And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Narsingh Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State-respondents and perused the record.
Facts
2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 03.09.2020, registered as Case Crime No.505 of 2020, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Galshahid, District Moradabad and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR. 3. On the earlier occasion, while taking cognizance of the matter, this Court was apprised that a compromise had been arrived at between the petitioners and the informant, signifying an amicable settlement of the dispute. Taking into consideration the said development, and with a view to ascertain its genuineness, this Court vide its order dated 07.05.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise. A direction was also issued to the Investigating Officer to present the parties before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording their statements. The relevant observations of the Court in the said order are extracted below for ready reference and contextual appreciation:-
Legal Reasoning
10 SCC 303, and the decision of this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8510 of 2022, decided on 16.09.2022). 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels, perused the pleadings, and examined the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not bound by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, especially where the offence is private in nature and does not involve any element of public harm or societal concern. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, civil transactions, financial dealings, and other matters where the dispute is essentially personal and does not affect public interest, the Court should adopt a pragmatic and restorative approach, prioritizing reconciliation and restoration of peace over punitive proceedings. However, the Court also drew a clear line that such power should not be exercised in cases involving heinous offences or crimes with grave impact on society. 9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the FIR in question stems from a private and interpersonal dispute, devoid of any serious criminality or public harm. The parties have expressed genuine willingness to put an end to their discord and have entered into a written compromise duly verified before the appropriate forum. There is no allegation of coercion, deceit, or fraud in the execution of the compromise. 10. Moreover, the renowned Latin maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium — meaning "it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation" — aptly underscores the necessity of finality in legal proceedings. This principle was emphatically upheld by this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P., reaffirming that precious judicial time and investigative resources must not be wasted on cases that have lost their adversarial essence and where the likelihood of conviction is minimal. It has been rightly emphasized that the justice delivery system should prioritize matters of substantive public importance rather than being mired in private disputes that no longer present any genuine grievance. 11. In view of the aforementioned facts, legal position, and the spirit of reconciliation demonstrated by the parties, this Court is of the firm view that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings, thereby preserving judicial resources and preventing unnecessary hardship to the parties. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The first information report dated 03.09.2020, registered as Case Crime No.505 of 2020, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Galshahid, District Moradabad, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 13. The interim protection granted to the petitioners, vide earlier orders of this Court, stands confirmed.
Arguments
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for State respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 03.09.2020 registered as Case Crime No.505 of 2020 under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Galshahid, Distt. Moradabad and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged totally on false allegations just to harass the petitioners. However, it is submitted that the parties have already settled the matter out of court vide compromise dated 04.04.2025 and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, it is pressed that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. He submits that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), B.S. Joshi (supra) and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of compromise another criminal proceeding between the parties has also been quashed by this Court on 30.04.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7905 of 2025 (Rizqan Qureshi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and as such it is submitted that on the basis of compromise the instant proceeding may also be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, on the basis of counter affidavit, has also corroborated the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the informant has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. As it is informed that till date the police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the aforesaid Case Crime No.341 of 2023, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise dated 04.04.2025 within one 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 settlement/compromise had been fulfilled or not and submit a report before this Court by the next date without fail. 11. List this matter on 27.05.2025 in top ten of the cases. 12. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR." 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the parties appeared before the Investigating Officer and subsequently before the competent Magistrate and the Incharge Criminal Branch/concerned Magistrate, Moradabad, vide order dated 26.05.2025 verified the said compromise. The compromise verification report dated 26.05.2025, duly verified by the Incharge Criminal Branch/concerned Magistrate, Moradabad, is on record. 5. Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State-respondents states that settlement/compromise is duly verified and they have no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the parties, in one voice, have submitted that the dispute arose from a personal misunderstanding and has since been resolved amicably through the aforementioned settlement agreement. It is their collective submission that the continuation of criminal proceedings in such a scenario would serve no meaningful purpose and would, in fact, amount to misuse of the legal process. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)
Decision
14. There shall be no order as to costs. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 27.5.2025 VKG Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad