Allowed¶29

Rakam Singh Rana v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025CRLP/2792/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise/settlement between parties; writ under Article 226; inherent/extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable cases; Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC; Case Crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur; compromise dated 12.12.2024 verified by Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband; Gian Singh para 61 guidelines; B.S. Joshi; Anuj Pandey (Allahabad DB, 16.9.2022); abuse of process; ends of justice; neutral citation 2025:AHC:66772-DB; decided 28.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the First Information Report dated 6.9.2024 registered as case crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC and of the proceedings arising therefrom. ¶29

Rakam Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report dated 6.9.2024 registered as case crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement dated 12.12.2024 between the parties. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The genesis of the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature, involving neither moral turpitude nor any heinous offence; the dispute having been amicably settled vide compromise dated 12.12.2024 and duly verified by the concerned Magistrate, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and were liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case justice so demands, particularly where the offence involves a private dispute of commercial or matrimonial nature and is not related to any heinous offence.

¶16

Key takeaways

Applying B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh and Anuj Pandey, the writ petition was allowed and the proceedings of the First Information Report dated 6.9.2024 (Case Crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur) under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC were quashed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Anil Kumar-X, JJ.) allowed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed the FIR dated 6.9.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against the petitioner Rakam Singh Rana. The Court found the genesis of the dispute to be purely civil in nature, involving no moral turpitude and not heinous; the parties had amicably settled vide compromise dated 12.12.2024, which was verified pursuant to the Court's order dated 27.2.2025 by the Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur (report dated 2.4.2025), with the informant having no objection and the State conceding. Relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61 quoted) and the Division Bench ruling in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8510 of 2022, decided 16.9.2022), the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and quashed the FIR and all proceedings thereunder.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66772-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2792 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rakam Singh Rana Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

¶6

1. Learned AGA has filed verification of compromise, which is taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard Mr. Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the material brought on the record.

¶8

3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated 6.9.2024 registered as case crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC.

¶9

4. This Court vide order dated 27.2.2025 has proceeded to pass the following order:

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for State respondents.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 06.09.2024 in Case Crime No.0207 of 2024 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Baragaon, Distt. Saharanpur and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner has transmitted the entire alleged amount in the account of the informant through RTGS and there is no outstanding amount left upon the petitioner. The parties have also entered into compromise dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, states that since the parties have already settled the matter out of court and as such, the impugned first

¶13

information report is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another J.T. 2008(9) SC 192, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 and also in Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶14

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, it is pressed that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. He submits that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), B.S. Joshi (supra) and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.

¶15

5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.

¶16

6. In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involves private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶17

7. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal proceeding and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶18

8. As it is informed that till date the police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the aforesaid Case Crime, we direct that the parties may appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise dated 12.12.2024 within one week from today. Thereafter, the investigating officer will produce the parties to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for verification of the said claim. It is also directed that the Magistrate concerned will record the statement of the parties concerned as to whether the terms and conditions if set out in the settlement/compromise had been fulfilled or not and submit a report before this Court by the next date without fail.

¶19

9. List this matter on 17.03.2025.

¶20

10. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report, provided he cooperates with the investigation in question. "

¶21

5. In response to the order dated 27.2.2025, a report dated 2.4.2025

¶22

is submitted by the Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur whereby the compromise/settlement has been duly verified. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the parties reached a mutual compromise and executed a Compromise on 12.12.2024, agreeing to withdraw cases filed against each other. He further states that since the parties have already settled the matter, the instant First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the informant states informant has no objection in case the impugned first information report is quashed. Learned AGA has also fairly submitted that as the matter is already settled and the interim order was accorded, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

¶24

7. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise dated 12.12.2024, duly verified by the Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case 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 . Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 16.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8510 of 2022 ( Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors. ), wherein, it is observed that the High Court has ample power under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report in which the parties have settled their disputes which are of private in nature and have no any grave impact on the society. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies are very precious which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak.

¶25

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;

¶26

"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

¶27

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."

¶28

The genesis of the dispute between the parties was of purely civil in nature. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 12.12.2024 and the same was also duly verified by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, under the changed circumstances, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

¶29

The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 6.9.2024 registered as case crime No.0207 of 2024, P.S. Baragaon, District Saharanpur under

¶30

Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC are quashed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Ujjawal

¶31

(Anil Kumar-X, J) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakam Singh Rana v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakam Singh Rana v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramsukh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neelam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neelam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitesh @ Nitnesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others