HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29348 of 2015 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Mohan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.09.2015, passed by the learned court below, whereby compromise application for compounding the case has been rejected, and the proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 1517 of 2011 (State Vs. Ghanshyam Nishra), pending in the court of A.D.J., Ist Allahabad, arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2011, under Sections 326 and 328, IPC, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad, in terms of compromise, and further prayed for stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.
It is has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is an accused in the present case and he has compromise his dispute with the informant and injured of the case, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. He submitted that has moved an application for compromise, before the trial court, and the same has been rejected stating that the offence in question is a non-compoundable offence.
Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the prayer, and submitted that the case is at the advance stage and the statement of the four prosecution witnesses have been recorded. The offence under Sections 326 and 328, IPC, which is serious in nature.
Quashing of the proceeding has been sought on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise.
In the case of Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 guidelines have been laid as to when criminal proceedings in a non compoundable offence can be quashed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of a compromise between the parties.
In my opinion the injured/victim who is the father of the informant has lost both his eye sight because of consumption of poisonous liqueur and the trial is at its conclusion stage and the statement of four prosecution witness have been recorded, hence the present case does not fall within the category of cases, which can be compounded in the light of the case 'Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab'. Hence the present case cannot be allow to be quashed on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.
The present application under Section 482 lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2015 VKG