Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22879-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1472 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nitin Kaushik And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhand Pratap Tripathi,Vikas Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 25.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report." 3. Present matter was taken up on 31.1.2025 and the Court has proceeded to pass a detailed interim order with following observations. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some tiny dispute has taken place between the parties for parking area and the same has already been settled out of court. It is pressed that continuation of the 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. The settlement/compromise is brought on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 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. Learned A.G.A. states that in the instant matter police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the matter. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Put up as fresh on 18.02.2025. 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 thereof, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura has submitted detailed report dated 6.2.2025. Bare perusal of the same reveals that the parties have settled the matter amicably. 5. It is jointly submitted that the dispute has come to be amicably resolved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura, 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 cases of 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 6. 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. The present dispute has come to an end under an amicable settlement, which is duly verified by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura as such continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law and the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.828 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 305(a), 324(4) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura are quashed. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 18.2.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad