Allahabad High Court
Heera Lal And 8 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36248 of 2022
Applicant :- Heera Lal And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled outside the Court by way of compromise. The compromise has been entered into between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. All the accused persons have signed on the compromise and thus it is prayed that on the basis of such settlement, the proceedings impugned may be quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has conceded the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the petition submitting that the charges have been framed on 21.08.2015 under Sections 147/323/504/506/304 I.P.C. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have also examined. It is further submitted that the offences under Section 304 I.P.C. is in the category of heinous offences and therefore, it is an offence against the society and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived between the parties.
In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of "Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936".
The Apex Court passed in the case of "Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936", has held that the offences which are against the society, are not private in nature and has serious impact on the society and continuance of trial in such cases is founded on the overriding effect of public interest in punishing persons for such serious offences. Relevant part of the order is extracted below:-
50. In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra), Section 307 of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306 of the IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised.
On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that contention of learned counsel for the State has force. The offence under Section 304 I.P.C. is serious and heinous offence against the society and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Daxaben (supra), impugned proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived between the informant and the accused persons.
With these observations, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.11.2022
RC
