Surjawati Devi And 4 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. Shri Surendra Mohan Mishra holding brief of Shri Munna Tiwari appears for the informant. The short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 25.3.2015 being Case Crime No.241A of 2015 under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 323 and 506 IPC, P.S. Lar, Distt. Deoria and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably out of Court vide notary affidavit dated 24.11.2021 and as such present FIR may be quashed. Learned counsel for the informant has also supported the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably out of court vide notary affidavit dated 24.11.2021, which is annexed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the short counter affidavit.

It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, which has already been amicably resolved under the notary affidavit dated 24.11.2021, 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.

Learned AGA has also submitted that once the dispute between the parties have already been amicably resolved under the notary affidavit dated 24.11.2021, pending proceedings would serve no purpose. 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.