Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kashyap And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 February, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:24300-DB
Court No. – 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 20232 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kashyap And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafar Abbas,Sarve Nazir
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon’ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA-I for State respondents and Sri Faheem Ahmad, learned counsel for informant – respondent No.3.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated 07.12.2023 being Case Crime No.73 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 / 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for the informant – respondent No.3 states that he has already filed a short counter affidavit dated 21.12.2023, bringing on record the statement and satisfaction of the informant that she has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed. He submits that the marriage between the victim informant, Smt. Gangadei, and petitioner no. 1 was conducted according to Hindu customs and rituals on 09.05.2016. The couple has two children named Madhav and Raghav, who currently reside with both the petitioners and the informant. A dispute arose between the husband and wife, leading the informant to file the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners based on her parents’ advice. However, the dispute was resolved, and petitioner no. 1 returned with the informant and their children to their matrimonial home. Currently, they are living peacefully without any further disputes and the informant is unwilling to pursue the criminal case against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as there is a matrimonial dispute and the parties have already settled the same amicably and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed.
5. As it is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved 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.
6. 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.”
7. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
8. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 07.12.2023 being Case Crime No.73 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 / 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad are quashed.
Order Date :- 13.2.2024
NLY
