Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Gautam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3741 of 2022
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Gautam
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajit Kumar Nishad
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajit Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Instant application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 22.7.2019 in Case Crime No.0318 of 2019 under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow and cognizance order dated 1.8.2019 in Case No.39732 of 2019 (Computerized Case No.UPLKO40616242019, State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gautam pending the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-6, Lucknow, which is presently under challenge in Sessions Trial No.1817 of 2021 before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to misunderstanding, instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant though no such incident had taken place. Country made pistol as alleged in the F.I.R. was not used by the applicant. He has drawn attention of the Court towards supplementary report, which has been annexed at page 9 of the supplementary affidavit, and submits that the injury is multiple pin port reddish on the anterior aspect of the right lower leg. Injury was kept under observation and no blackening and tattooing is present. The doctor has opined on the basis of radiological report that no index of bony layer is seen and the injury is simple in nature which can be caused with burnt object or may be any allergy. He submits that the case of the applicant is covered under para 13 (iv) of the Judgment rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688. Para 13 (iv) of the Judgment is quoted as under:-
"Para 13. (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;"
Referring the aforesaid Judgment, he submits that the injuries are simple in nature and opinion of the doctor is that the same can be caused with any burnt object or may be any allergy. Since there is no grievous injury over the body of the injured, thus, the case of the applicant is covered under the aforesaid Judgment and, therefore, the court below may be directed to verify the compromise deed dated 8.6.2022, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the contention aforesaid rather he has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise and that has been reduced in writing on 8.6.2022, as such, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has also no objection to the contention aforesaid.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the instant application is disposed off with the direction to the court below concerned that if any such compromise deed is filed, the court below shall issue notice to all the signatories of the compromise deed requiring their presence before it to verify the contents of the compromise and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared within one month and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof. Thereafter, the parties may approach this Court for quashing of the aforementioned criminal proceedings.
For the period of one month, further proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case shall remain stayed.
Office is directed to return back the original compromise deed, if any, to the applicant within one week.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
Ram Murti
