Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50579-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6524 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Goldi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava 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. for the State respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred with prayer to quash impugned First Information Report dated 09.08.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0268 of 2024, under Section 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., P.S.Bevar, District-Mainpuri and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made categorical statement that date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 01.01.2007 and date of birth of petitioner no.2 is 01.01.2005 and as such, both the petitioners are major. He further contended that at no point of time, the second petitioner has eloped the first petitioner, in fact, they have solemnized marriage on 10.01.2025 at Arya Samaj Mati Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat out of their own free will and they are living happily as a married couple. She next contended that they have got their marriage registered and the marriage registration certificate has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In the aforesaid backdrop, he states that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he has placed heavy reliance on judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 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. 4. Learned A.G.A., on the instructions, states that till date the police report has not been submitted in the present matter. However, he did not dispute the aforesaid factual situation and stated that once both the petitioners, who are stated to be major, have solemnized marriage on their own free will and living happily together, he has no objection, if the matter is decided on merits. 5. In the aforesaid factual situation, we have gone through the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S Joshi's case (supra) wherein the Court has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC, there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 6. Further, the Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) has held 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. The Apex Court has further held that in these category of cases, the 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. 7. In Gian Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court has further held as under : "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. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that no offence under Section 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., is made out against the petitioners as petitioner no.1 has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner no.2 willingly and is living with him as his wife after solemnizing marriage. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned First Information Report dated 09.08.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0268 of 2024, under Section 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., P.S.Bevar, District-Mainpuri as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Manish Himwan (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M.C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad