High Court · 2025

1. Heard Ms. Nitu Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents and Sri Niyaj Ahamad, learned counsel for the informant.

2. Both the matters were taken up on 04.09.2024 and on the said date, following interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioners:- "1. Heard Sri Sarfaraz Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Warish Khan, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 30.07.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0415 of 2024, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 354, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is every possibility of mediation in the present case, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

4. In view of the above, it is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- within 10 days from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court and the same shall be retained by the Mediation Centre as mediation fee.

5. Both the parties are directed to appear before mediation centre on

18.09.2024.

6. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.

7. List this case on 21.10.2024 as fresh along with connected matter before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the above mentioned case.

9. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response of the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and eventually, the settlement agreement took place on 08.01.2025 between petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.4 (wife). The settlement agreement is appended alongwith the report of the Incharge, Mediation Centre.

4. It is submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 08.01.2025, duly verified by the parties and their counsels before the Mediation Centre, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of 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.

5. 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, between the parties, then 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 powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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."

6. The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement dated 08.01.2025.

7. Both the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings of impugned First Information Report dated 30.07.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0415 of 2024, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 354, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, are quashed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 RKP (Prashant Kumar, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Nitu Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents and Sri Niyaj Ahamad, learned counsel for the informant.

2. Both the matters were taken up on 04.09.2024 and on the said date, following interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioners:- "1. Heard Sri Sarfaraz Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Warish Khan, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 30.07.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0415 of 2024, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 354, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is every possibility of mediation in the present case, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

4. In view of the above, it is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- within 10 days from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court and the same shall be retained by the Mediation Centre as mediation fee.

5. Both the parties are directed to appear before mediation centre on

18.09.2024.

6. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.

7. List this case on 21.10.2024 as fresh along with connected matter before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the above mentioned case.

9. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response of the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and eventually, the settlement agreement took place on 08.01.2025 between petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.4 (wife). The settlement agreement is appended alongwith the report of the Incharge, Mediation Centre.

4. It is submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 08.01.2025, duly verified by the parties and their counsels before the Mediation Centre, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of 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.

5. 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, between the parties, then 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 powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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."

6. The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement dated 08.01.2025.

7. Both the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings of impugned First Information Report dated 30.07.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0415 of 2024, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 354, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, are quashed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 RKP (Prashant Kumar, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad