High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi holding brief of Shri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for State respondents and Shri Sandeep Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Kunj Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the informant-respondent No.3.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections 333, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 118 BNS 2023, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

3. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 07.01.2025 had passed detailed order with the following effect: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Kunj Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections 333, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 118 BNS 2023, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor.

3. The Division Bench vide order dated 18.12.2024 accorded interim protection to the petitioners on the basis that compromise has taken place between the parties. Admittedly till date the chargesheet has not been submitted in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have already settled the matter out of court, continuation of proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law 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. Learned counsel for the informant acknowledged the agreement of compromise/settlement and states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise/settlement within a 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 compromise/settlement had been fulfilled or not and submit a report by the next date through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.

8. Put up as fresh on 29.01.2025. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report."

4. In response to the order dated 07.01.2025, a supplementary affidavit has been filed and taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the compromise, executed on 21.01.2025, was duly verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same date and was made voluntarily, without coercion or pressure, a copy of which has also been brought on record.

5. The learned AGA fairly states that once the compromise has been duly verified, he has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for the informant also has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

6. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 21.01.2025, therefore, 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.

7. 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."

8. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide settlement agreement dated 21.01.2025, 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 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections 333, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 118 BNS 2023, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor are quashed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 NLY NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi holding brief of Shri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for State respondents and Shri Sandeep Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Kunj Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the informant-respondent No.3.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections 333, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 118 BNS 2023, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

3. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 07.01.2025 had passed detailed order with the following effect: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Kunj Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections 333, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 118 BNS 2023, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor.

3. The Division Bench vide order dated 18.12.2024 accorded interim protection to the petitioners on the basis that compromise has taken place between the parties. Admittedly till date the chargesheet has not been submitted in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have already settled the matter out of court, continuation of proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law 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. Learned counsel for the informant acknowledged the agreement of compromise/settlement and states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise/settlement within a 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 compromise/settlement had been fulfilled or not and submit a report by the next date through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.

8. Put up as fresh on 29.01.2025. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report."

4. In response to the order dated 07.01.2025, a supplementary affidavit has been filed and taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the compromise, executed on 21.01.2025, was duly verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same date and was made voluntarily, without coercion or pressure, a copy of which has also been brought on record.

5. The learned AGA fairly states that once the compromise has been duly verified, he has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for the informant also has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

6. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 21.01.2025, therefore, 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.

7. 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."

8. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide settlement agreement dated 21.01.2025, 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 21.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections 333, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 118 BNS 2023, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor are quashed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 NLY NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad