Allahabad High Court
Jogendra Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35392
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4980 of 2023
Applicant :- Jogendra Singh And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Arti Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Sri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakaltanama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for set-aside the entire proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 323, 120B of the IPC read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 District Gonda.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that due to certain misconception, the First Information Report was lodged and after sometime, the parties sat together and they have amicably settled their dispute and now that has to be reduced in writing. He added that he may be permitted to submit the compromise deed before the trial Court concerned.
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."
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute and further criminal proceeding would be a futile exercise and thus the matter may be referred to the trial Court for verification of the compromise deed which the parties are agreed to filed before the trial Court itself.
The learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid on merits but he has no objection if the parties have settled their dispute.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
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 the Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 323, 120B of the IPC read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 District Gonda, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.
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 :- 19.5.2023
Anurag
