Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76913-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9402 of 2025 Petitioner :- Monti @ Harishankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 3 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 05.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 333 B.N.S. and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Moth, District- Jhansi (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 petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though all alleged offences are punishable upto 7 years but under the facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. He submits that the informant, his wife and other witnesses have given their affidavits along with application to the Senior Superintendent of Police Jhansi on 8.4.2025, wherein they denied the entire prosecution story and they do not want to proceed further in the case. The same had also been brought on record as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that once the informant himself 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. The same has been acknowledged by learned counsel for the informant through a supporting affidavit. Learned AGA-I has also 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. 49 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 333 B.N.S. and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Moth, District- Jhansi are quashed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 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