Allahabad High Court
Gurdeep Kaur And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief … on 9 June, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35063-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1581 of 2024 Petitioner :- Gurdeep Kaur And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishan Baghel,Nishchal Verma,Veena Vijayan Rajes Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sachin Chaturvedi Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Hon’ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioners has prayed for the following relief”
“(i) Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 0049/2024, lodged under Sections 307/504/506/380/120-B of IPC at Police Station – Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, as contained in Annexure No. P1 to this writ petition.
(ii) Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR No. 0049 /2024, dated 01.02.2024, lodged under Sections 307/504/506/380/120-B of IPC at Police Station – Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.
(iii) Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to take coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR No. 0049/2024 dated 01.02.2024, lodged under Section 307/504/506/380/120-B of IPC at Police Station – Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.”
3. This Court vide order dated 26.5.2025 directed the parties to appear before the senior registrar for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties on 04.06.2025.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the senior registrar on 04.06.2025 to verify the aforesaid compromise and after verification of contents of the compromise and the parties thereof, the senior registrar has submitted his report dated 04.06.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled through compromise.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioners and the private opposite party have settled their dispute through compromise, which has been verified by the senior registrar, therefore, compelling the prosecution to prosecute the present petitioner would to be a futile exercise and also consideringthe observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed and alsothe dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the cases ofState of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the impugned FIR is hereby quashed. The compromise taken place between the parties and its verification report dated 04.06.2025 submitted by the senior registrar would be the part of this order.
7. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
8. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.6.2025
Arif