Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3912 of 2022

Petitioner :- Mandhir Singh Todd And 6 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Divakar Rai Sharma

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri

Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri

Arunendra Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

preferred for quashing the proceedings of FIR dated 3.10.2018,

registered as Case Crime No.0719/2018, under Sections

420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC, P.S. Noida Phase-II, Gautam Budh

Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid FIR was the

subject matter of challenge in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.32580/2018

(Mandhir Singh Todd and another vs. state of U.P. and Others), wherein

this Court vide order dated 15.11.2018, referred the matter to the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court where the parties had

amicably settled the disputes on 16.2.2019 and consequently the said

writ petition was disposed of on 1.4.2019 but inadvertently the impugned

FIR therein, was not quashed by this Court, which fact is not disputed by

learned counsel for the complainant.

Thus, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of

the said compromise, which is not objected by learned counsel for the

complainant, the pending proceedings before the court below be

quashed in the light of the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61

that;

"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

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 oppressio