Parvin Khan Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30920-DB

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9290 of 2024

Petitioner :- Parvin Khan Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Tripathi,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Short Court Affidavit filed on behalf of fourth respondent is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Mohd. Danish Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Shashank Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

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 07.08.2023 registered as Case Crime No.0270 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Simbhawali, District- Hapur.

¶9

The matter was entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench on 04.07.2024 and interim protection was accorded to the petitioner with following observations:

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

¶11

2. Short counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.

¶12

3. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 7.8.2023 registered as Case Crime no. 270 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Simbhawali, District Hapur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶13

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that incorrect high-school certificate was filed while applying for fair price shop dealership and the fair price shop has been cancelled, however, criminal prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner by private respondent, whereas the petitioner in fact has passed high-school certificate in the year 2017, which was found to be correct, therefore, criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed.

¶14

5. In view of the fact that the informant and the petitioner have entered into compromise to settle the dispute peacefully, learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

¶15

6. The petitioners shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

7. List thereafter before the appropriate Bench.

¶17

8. Till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained from arresting the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid FIR subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation.

¶18

9. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not have any effect on the case of the petitioner, if any, in respect of cancellation of the fair price shop."

¶19

In response to the order dated 04.07.2024, a Short Counter Affidavit is filed, wherein, the fourth respondent categorically states that the parties have settled the matter out of Court through a Compromise dated 26.06.2024 and the parties have agreed 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.

¶20

Sri Shashank Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant states that the 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.

¶21

It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the compromise dated 26.06.2024 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.

¶22

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

¶23

"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

¶24

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."

¶25

The present dispute neither involves any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide compromise dated 26.06.2024, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 07.08.2023 registered as Case Crime No.0270 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Simbhawali, District- Hapur are quashed.

¶27

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 A. Pandey

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parvin Khan v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvin Khan v. State of Up 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