Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75762-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8674 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramashankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramashankar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Kashinath Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 4 and Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A. 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 22.6.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 299 of 2024, under Section 384 IPC, Police Station- Nijamabad, District- Azamgarh(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. As it has been informed that both the petitioners are working as Constable in U.P.Police and out of spur of moment, the complaint was moved and later on the impugned FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that informant herself has moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police Azamgarh on 8.4.2025, wherein she has categorically submitted that on 12.6.2024, two constables came and asked certain queries and at no point of time, they had demanded any amount from the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that once the informant herself has moved a categorical application to the S.S.P. refusing the allegation, 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. 5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA has no objection in case the FIR is quashed. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 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 writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No. 299 of 2024, under Section 384 IPC, Police Station- Nijamabad, District- Azamgarh are quashed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 9.5.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad