Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13601-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23597 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 31.7.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0034 of 2024, under Section 79 B.N.S. and 66-C of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime Bareilly, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states the parties have already settled the dispute out of the Court and the informant vide letter dated 6.8.2024 duly communicated the same to the Superintendent of Police (Crime), Bareilly along with notarised affidavit, which is also brought on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. As such 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 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303. 4. Learned AGA on the instructions states that notarised affidavit is already received, which is part of the case diary. In the facts and circumstances, he has no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for the informant also reiterates the same. 5. 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 petitioner is a student and preparing or competitive exam. The impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 4/informant with malicious intention just to harass the petitioner. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No. 0034 of 2024, under Section 79 B.N.S. and 66-C of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime Bareilly, District Bareilly are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad