Allahabad High Court
Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Kumar ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 450 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shaunak Singh,Sudhir Kumar,Suhail Kashif
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 06.01.2023 being Case Crime No.0001 of 2023 under Sections 307, 323, 504 & 506 IPC. Police Station Sairpur, District Lucknow and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record a compromise deed that has occurred between the petitioner and one Shakeel Ahmad towards alleged incident that occurred on 06.01.2023. The same is kept on record.
Learned A.G.A. has produced a copy of instructions sent by Sub Inspector, Police Station Sairpur, Distrcit Lucknow, wherein, it has been found that the injured witness had five injuries on his body and all of them are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. The statement of Meraj Khan was also recorded and on his disclosure two live cartridges and two empty cartridges were recovered from the place of the incident. The main accused Ashish Singh has remained absconding, despite the efforts being made by the police.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the writ petition and oral submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise deed has occurred between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court an order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4690 of 2021; Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of U.P. and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that in a similar case, though not identical, the Single Judge has interfered by referring to the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC 466 with regard to the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
It has submitted that now settlement has occurred between the parties and offence under Section 307 I.P.C. even though it may fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone, it would be open for 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 proving 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 vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapon used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.
It has further been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case the High Court finds that the injury was inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceeding, whereas, in the latter case, it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. The Court can also take into account that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance upon judgment render by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688 where the Supreme Court had observed that offences under Section 307 IPC and 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, 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 parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.
However, placing reliance upon Narindra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Another; the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed in the case of Laxmi Narayan (Supra) that the High Court can look into the evidence collected after investigation and when the chargesheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during trial and take an appropriate decision but such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.
This Court having carefully gone through the judgement rendered in Narindra Singh and others and in Laxmi Narayan (supra) as quoted in judgement of the Single Judge in the Case of Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim and others (Supra), is of the opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all law has observed that the exercise of quashing of FIR is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. It is only in 482 Cr.P.C. petition where charge-sheet is either filed/charges framed or during trial, the High Court would be exercising its power for quashing of the FIR/charge-sheet.
This Court has perused the instructions sent by the Sub Inspector of Police Station Sairpur, District Lucknow, which says that the accused has remained absconding and is not cooperating in the investigation and therefore the investigation cannot be completed.
This court sitting in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR at the behest of such non-cooperating accused.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Reena/-
