The court quashed the impugned FIR in a matrimonial dispute where the parties had successfully entered into a settlement agreement before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, relying on settled precedents regarding quashing proceedings upon settlement.
The FIR dated 04.06.2017, registered as Case Crime No. 254 of 2017, is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14426 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Vimlesh & 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghazala Bano Quadri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record..
By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned FIR dated 04.06.2017, registered as Case Crime No. 254 of 2017, under Sections 323, 377, 307, 147, 504, 506, 498-A, IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court by order dated 27.07.2017.
From the perusal of the report of the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 06.12.2017, it transpires that the mediation between the parties has succeeded and the parties have entered into settlement agreement before Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court on 06.12.2017. A copy of the final settlement agreement dated 06.12.2017 has been produced by the counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record.
Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned AGA for the State has admitted the fact of the settlement.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that the petitioners and respondent no. 4 have settled the dispute and as such respondent no. 4 does not want to press the present case against the petitioners. The respondent no. 4 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioners and in view of the settlement no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to settlement and have settled their dispute amicably.
In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh versus State Of Punjab (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the F.I.R. as the dispute being matrimonial in nature and have been amicably settled between husband and wife.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the F.I.R. of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present petition stands allowed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 19.3.2018/VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR can be quashed given the settlement and matrimonial nature of the dispute.
Whether the court has the power to quash the proceedings under Article 226 in view of the settlement agreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Sharma Vs. StateReferred¶8
Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & othersRelied on¶811
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anotherRelied on¶811
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Vimlesh & 7 Others
State Of U.P. & 3 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
