Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Taha @ Samun And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57036
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7906 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Taha @ Samun And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Avanindra Singh Parihar,Maitryee Singh,Monika Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Monika Dwivedi
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Avanindra Singh Parihar and Maitryee Singh, learned counsels for the applicants, Ms. Monika Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.11918 of 2023; State Vs. Samun and others, arising out of Case Crime No.249 of 2022 under Sections 34, 323, 307 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli as well as impugned charge sheet no.306 of 2022 dated 18.6.2022 submitted against the applicants under Sections 34, 323, 307 I.P.C. by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case crime number and impugned summoning order dated 8.6.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli in the light of compromise attained between the parties so far as the same relate to the applicants.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they havefalsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that it is no injury case, though the allegations against the applicants are for attempt of committing murder. He next added that after the investigation, no such evidence has ever been found that there was any injury over the body of the alleged injured. He submits that F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants due to misconception and, therefore, once the truthfulness came into the knowledge of the opposite party no.2, the parties sat together and decided, not to proceed further and that too was reduced in writing on 13.7.2023, which has been annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 along with the supplementary affidavit dated 18.8.2023.
Adding his arguments, he submits that as per the ratio of law laid down in paragraph no. 15.4 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated the guidelines so far as the compromise under sections 307 readwith section 34 I.P.C. is concerned. Para no. 15.4 of the Judgment in the case of Laxmi Narayan(Supra) is extracted hereinunder:-
"15.4 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of an offence under Section 307, the compromise can be entered into between the parties, where there is no injury on the vital part of the injured. He further submits that it is a case where there is no injury over the body of the injured and, thus, it is the best case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed against the present applicants.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite party no.2 against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the part criminal proceedings cannot be quashed even prior to the stage of commencement of the trial. He further added that out of six accused persons, only two accused persons have come forward with the compromise deed and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be quashed in part.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the State is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no bar in quashing criminal proceeding, prior to the commencement of the trial.
Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.
The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
For a period of one month, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of theCriminal Case No.11918 of 2023; State Vs. Samun and others, arising out of Case Crime No.249 of 2022 under Sections 34, 323, 307 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.
The office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
Ram Murti
