Allahabad High Court
Shiv Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5656 of 2022
Applicant :- Shiv Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd.Mateen
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 5.9.2021 as well as the summoning order dated 15.9.2021 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.104 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police station Kotwali Dehat, Lucknow Balrampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur.
3. The ground for quashing the impugned proceedings is the compromise arrived at between the parties on 25.7.2022. The compromise has been reduced in writing and the same has been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the petition.
4. The complainant/prosecutrix is present in person, who has been identified by her counsel, Ms. Kafiya Shafiq.
5. The Court has also interacted with the complainant, who said that no such incident, for which the FIR came to be registered under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, took place and the FIR was registered because of some land dispute with the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, since the offence under Section 376 IPC is one of the heinous offences and against the society, the same cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Thus, the present petition is dismissed.
12. However considering the stand of the prosecutrix before this Court, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case and record the statement of the prosecutrix at an early date and conclude the trial at the earliest.
Order Date :- 25.8.2022
Rao/-
