Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86371-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10422 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gayyur And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondents and Shri Sujeet Kumar Yadav, holding brief of Shri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 345 of 2025 under Sections 85, 74, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. 3. According to the impugned FIR, the informant was married six years ago and her family had given substantial dowry during the marriage. However, the accused persons were allegedly not satisfied with the dowry amount and continuously harassed and tortured the informant on this account. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is nothing but a false and fabricated case lodged due to harassment and old enmity between the parties who are relatives. It is submitted that this is a cross case as the brother of the first petitioner had already lodged an FIR on 17.04.2025 against the family members of the informant registered as Case Crime No. 330 of 2025 under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at the same police station. The learned counsel argues that the informant has concocted a false story and falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case, which is bad in law. It is further submitted that a compromise has been executed between both parties on 30.04.2025 in the presence of witnesses for quashing the present FIR, demonstrating the lack of genuine grievance. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners are innocent, law- abiding citizens with no criminal history except the present case. It is contended that the investigation is still pending without any charge sheet or final report being submitted by the investigating officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner s therefore prays that considering the compromise between parties and the settled legal position, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA-1 for the State-respondents states that the matter has been settled amicably on the basis of compromise dated 30.04.2025 and they have no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the parties, in one voice, have submitted that the dispute arose from a personal misunderstanding and has since been resolved amicably through the aforementioned settlement agreement. It is their collective submission that the continuation of criminal proceedings in such a scenario would serve no meaningful purpose and would, in fact, amount to misuse of the legal process. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and the decision of this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8510 of 2022, decided on 16.09.2022). 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels, perused the pleadings, and examined the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not bound by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, especially where the offence is private in nature and does not involve any element of public harm or societal concern. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, civil transactions, financial dealings, and other matters where the dispute is essentially personal and does not affect public interest, the Court should adopt a pragmatic and restorative approach, prioritizing reconciliation and restoration of peace over punitive proceedings. However, the Court also drew a clear line that such power should not be exercised in cases involving heinous offences or crimes with grave impact on society. 8. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the parties have expressed genuine willingness to put an end to their discord and have entered into a written compromise duly verified before the appropriate forum. There is no allegation of coercion, deceit, or fraud in the execution of the compromise. 9. Moreover, the renowned Latin maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium — meaning "it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation" — aptly underscores the necessity of finality in legal proceedings. This principle was emphatically upheld by this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P., reaffirming that precious judicial time and investigative resources must not be wasted on cases that have lost their adversarial essence and where the likelihood of conviction is minimal. It has been rightly emphasized that the justice delivery system should prioritize matters of substantive public importance rather than being mired in private disputes that no longer present any genuine grievance. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts, legal position, the spirit of reconciliation demonstrated by the parties and as the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, this Court is of the firm view that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings, thereby preserving judicial resources and preventing unnecessary hardship to the parties. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The FIR dated 21.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 345 of 2025 under Sections 85, 74, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 12. The interim protection granted to the petitioners, vide earlier orders of this Court, stands confirmed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad