Others v. State of U.P. and

learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Janm Singh And 3 Others have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; i) issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report Dt. 05.04.2025 in Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, Under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal as (Annexure No. 1) to this writ petition. ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and directing him not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, Under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) Β.N.S., Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal. iii) issue any such other further order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. iv) Award the cost of the petitioners." 2 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025

4. Record shows that petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8365 of 2025 (Janm Singh and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). Aforementioned writ petition was disposed of finally by this Court, vide order dated 06.05.2025. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below;- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 05.04.2025 lodged in Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, under Sections- 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Sstation Chandausi, Distsrict Sambhal.

3. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present FIR is an outcome of dispute between the parties. The offences are punishable under 7 years or less than 7 years.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down guidelines for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:- "Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: All the State Governments instruct its police officers not automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.; All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 3 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."

5. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

6. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the petitioner is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the petitioner in this case, petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.

7. It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record 4 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025 during investigation against the petitioner, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the petitioner, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra). It is also directed that the I.O. of the case shall gear up the investigation and conclude the same preferably within a period of 60 days from today and submit its report u/s 193(3) B.N.S.S in the court of concerned Magistrate.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed off.

9. A certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today."

5. Subsequent to above, the parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties by way of a compromise deed dated

23.09.2025. The original compromise deed has been brought on record in present writ petition and has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that since the present writ petition has been filed on a different cause of action, therefore, the same is maintainable. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no criminality can be said to have been committed by the parties against State. Apart from above, the parties have freely entered into a compromise.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the injured has not sustained any grievous or fatal injury on his person. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for petitioner thus submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688, the compromise entered into by the parties can be accepted.

7. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that once the parties there are no chances of conviction of have entered accused/petitioners. The trial would only entail loss of public time and money. into a compromise,

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents does not oppose the present writ petition. He submits that since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and parties have entered into a compromise, 5 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025 therefore, he cannot have any objection, in case, the present writ petition is decided in terms of the compromise so entered into by the parties.

9. Mr. Aftab Ahamad, the learned counsel representing first informant- respondent-4 also does not oppose the present writ petition. However, upon instructions received by him, he submits that it is a fact that parties have entered into a compromise.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents, Mr. Aftab Ahamad, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 and upon perusal of record, we find that during the pendency of FIR, the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. The original compromise deed dated 23.09.2025 has been brought on record and is appended at page 30 of the paper book. Mr. Aftab Ahamad, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 admitted the execution of the aforementioned compromise deed between the parties. Since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against State, we, therefore, find that present writ petition can be decided in terms of compromise entered into by the parties.

11. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

12. It is, accordingly, allowed.

13. The impugned FIR dated 05.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) Β.N.S., Police Station- Chandausi, District-Sambhal shall stand quashed, in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. October 14, 2025 Vinay (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Janm Singh And 3 Others have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; i) issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report Dt. 05.04.2025 in Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, Under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal as (Annexure No. 1) to this writ petition. ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and directing him not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, Under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) Β.N.S., Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal. iii) issue any such other further order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. iv) Award the cost of the petitioners." 2 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025

4. Record shows that petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8365 of 2025 (Janm Singh and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). Aforementioned writ petition was disposed of finally by this Court, vide order dated 06.05.2025. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below;- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 05.04.2025 lodged in Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, under Sections- 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Sstation Chandausi, Distsrict Sambhal.

3. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present FIR is an outcome of dispute between the parties. The offences are punishable under 7 years or less than 7 years.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down guidelines for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:- "Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: All the State Governments instruct its police officers not automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.; All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 3 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."

5. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

6. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the petitioner is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the petitioner in this case, petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.

7. It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record 4 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025 during investigation against the petitioner, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the petitioner, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra). It is also directed that the I.O. of the case shall gear up the investigation and conclude the same preferably within a period of 60 days from today and submit its report u/s 193(3) B.N.S.S in the court of concerned Magistrate.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed off.

9. A certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today."

5. Subsequent to above, the parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties by way of a compromise deed dated

23.09.2025. The original compromise deed has been brought on record in present writ petition and has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that since the present writ petition has been filed on a different cause of action, therefore, the same is maintainable. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no criminality can be said to have been committed by the parties against State. Apart from above, the parties have freely entered into a compromise.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the injured has not sustained any grievous or fatal injury on his person. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for petitioner thus submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688, the compromise entered into by the parties can be accepted.

7. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that once the parties there are no chances of conviction of have entered accused/petitioners. The trial would only entail loss of public time and money. into a compromise,

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents does not oppose the present writ petition. He submits that since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and parties have entered into a compromise, 5 CRLP No. 23208 of 2025 therefore, he cannot have any objection, in case, the present writ petition is decided in terms of the compromise so entered into by the parties.

9. Mr. Aftab Ahamad, the learned counsel representing first informant- respondent-4 also does not oppose the present writ petition. However, upon instructions received by him, he submits that it is a fact that parties have entered into a compromise.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents, Mr. Aftab Ahamad, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 and upon perusal of record, we find that during the pendency of FIR, the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. The original compromise deed dated 23.09.2025 has been brought on record and is appended at page 30 of the paper book. Mr. Aftab Ahamad, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 admitted the execution of the aforementioned compromise deed between the parties. Since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against State, we, therefore, find that present writ petition can be decided in terms of compromise entered into by the parties.

11. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

12. It is, accordingly, allowed.

13. The impugned FIR dated 05.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0148 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) Β.N.S., Police Station- Chandausi, District-Sambhal shall stand quashed, in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. October 14, 2025 Vinay (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad