Allahabad High Court
Bajrangi And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28425 of 2022
Applicant :- Bajrangi And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambreesh Kumar
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ambreesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.
The present application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.98 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No.149 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 304, 504 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar as well as impugned charge sheet dated 4.7.2006 and impugned cognizance order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the learned Session Judge on the basis of compromise dated 08.08.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the alleged incident, both side have sustained injuries but unfortunately the injured Jivdhan died due to the injury received. Both side have also lodged the FIR against each other. From the side of the applicant, five persons have received injuries. Further submission is that both parties have entered into compromise and has filed compromise application before the court below, which has been verified vide order dated 10.08.2022, a copy of the same has been annexed as annexure-8 to the present application.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh arising out of Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as Sri Ambreesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant have admitted the fact of the compromise and submit that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. In the case of Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the court while dealing with the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. has held as under:
"19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably and the same has been filed before the court below, which has been verified by the court below. The opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, there is minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries, hence chances of conviction appear to be remote. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
Ajeet
