Rajeev Kumar Gupta @ Raju And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11149 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5012 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Gupta @ Raju And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Hari Krishna Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA.

2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 25.3.2021 as well as the cognizance order dated 7.4.2021 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.1678 of 2021, arising out of Crime No.832 of 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.

3. The ground for quashing of the proceedings is compromise arrived at between the parties on 15.6.2022, which has been placed on record as Annexure-7 to the petition.

4. An FIR bearing No.0832 of 2020 came to be registered under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC on a written complaint of the brother of the victim, Saurabh Singh, aged about 21 years. It is alleged that the petitioners, who are the accused in the FIR, caused the following serious injuries to the victim:-

"1. A contusion present on (Rt.) eye size of 2 cm x 2 cm red in colour, eye pernorbulp from swelling, refereed to eye surgeon for examination and management (rt.) eye.

2. Contused swelling present lowe and upped hip, size of 3 x 1 cm reddish colour.

3. A lacerated wound present (Lt.) side of scalp 8 cm above from (Lt.) face, swelling 2 x 0.4 cm fresh bleeding present.

4. A laceration present back of scalp, 6 cm post from (Lt) ear, size 2 x 0.2 cm fresh bleeding present.

5. Complaint of pain in B/L knee, but no mark of etc. injury seen.

6. A contusion present on (Rt.) upper back over spine of scapula, size of 3 x 2 cm, reddish colour.?

5. The victim was admitted in the hospital, but when his condition did not improve, he was refereed to the Trauma Center, Lucknow and after treatment, he could be discharged.

6. The police after investigating the offence, has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. Thereafter, a compromise has been entered into between Gaurav Singh, complainant, who is brother of the victim, Saurabh Singh, and the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when there is a compromise between the parties, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466. He has pressed in service paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment, in which the Supreme Court has culled out the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement. The principles laid down in paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment would read as under:-

"29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

8. Even from reading of the aforesaid principles, it would be evident that the offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of serious and heinous offences and this offence is generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, it was held that if the parties have arrived at a compromise, the High Court should examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor for the High Court for accepting or refusing to accept the settlement for quashing the criminal proceedings.

9. Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA submits that petitioner no.1 has long criminal history of ten cases.

10. The Supreme Court in the recent judgment rendered in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 936 has held that before exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR, criminal compliant and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court is required to be circumspect and must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. It has further been held that orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on the basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent.

11. The Supreme Court has expressed concerns that if the serious offences are allowed to be quashed on the basis of a compromise, the complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons with a view to extract money from the accused. It is also said that if the serious and heinous offences are quashed on the basis of compromise/settlement, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences sch as murder, rape, bride-burning etc by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them.

12. The position of the complainant in criminal jurisprudence is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. It is the duty of the State to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the State to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non-compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society.

13. The supreme Court has taken note of the earlier judgements, including the case of Narinder Singh (supra) and held that the criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only because there is a settlement between the accused and the complainant/informant. Section 307 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and is required to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone.

14. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra), there was no injury caused to the victim. In the present case, as per the allegation in the FIR, there are serious injuries which were allegedly caused by the petitioners to the victim, for which charge sheet has been filed.

15. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra), this Court find that there is no ground to quash the proceedings in the present case on the ground of compromise.

16. In view thereof, the present petition fails, which is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.8.2022

Rao/-