Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11827 of 2022
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Varun
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused persons for quashing criminal proceedings including the chargesheet dated 20.5.2015 arising out of Case Crime No.1186 of 2014, S.T. No.685 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending before the VII, Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.
2. During pendency of this application the parties have entered into compromise and settled the matter amicably. This Court passed order on 5.7.2022 with the direction to Court below to verify the contents of compromise. In pursuance thereof Supplementary affidavit has been filed on 23.8.2022 alongwith certified copy of the order dated 18.7.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ghaziabad whereby the said compromise has been verified.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Inherent Power of the High Court and Quashing of proceedings for non compoundable offences :-
(I) A three judge bench of the Supreme Court while considering conflict between Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, on the issue of exercising power under section 482 CrPC in regard to above referred point in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others:(2019)5 SCC 688 and, after considering earlier judgments Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh :(2019) 4 SCC 268; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar:(2019) 5 SCC 570, clarified Narinder Singh (supra) and held that :-
"15 Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." (Emphasis added)
5. Considering that the parties have entered into compromise and taking note of the fact that in the present case offences are under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC and also taking note of nature of head injury and it is not a case of heinous offence and that in view of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan (supra), entire Criminal Proceedings including the chargesheet dated 20.5.2015 arising out of Case Crime No.1186 of 2014, S.T. No.685 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending before the VII, Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 17.10.2022
Deepika
