Afzal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 30106 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208440
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30167 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Afzal And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Indra Bhan Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the instant second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1239 of 2023, (State v. Washil & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 625 of 2022, u/s 307, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Behat, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Saharanpur.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that as both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter, thus, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned proceedings of the case may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., [criminal appeal no. 686 of 2014], decided on 27.03.2014, Ramgopal v. The State of M.P., [criminal appeal no. 1489 of 2012], decided on 29.09.2021 and Dharmendra Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [application u/s 482 No. 12094 of 2021], decided on 23.03.2022.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant has not opposed the application and submitted that as both the parties have compromised the matter, thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the applicants-accused have been summoned for the offence under Section 307 IPC, besides the other sections of IPC and that in the alleged incident, the injured has sustained serious firearm injuries and thus, the impugned proceedings must not be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. It is further submitted that the informant is being threatened by the accused persons for compromise and he has submitted an affidavit before the Circle Officer, Behat, Saharanpur, wherein, he has stated that he has not compromised the case and that the accused persons were pressurizing for compromise, copy of which has been produced before this Court and the same is taken on record.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that earlier applicants have approached this Court for quashing of proceedings by filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15915 of 2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2023. This second application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of compromise between the parties but the fact regarding earlier application was concealed in this second application.

8. So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement, is concerned, in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, decided on 05.03.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its earlier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 vide Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

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;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

9. Keeping the aforesaid position of law in view, in the instant case, it is apparent from the record that the informant has lodged the first information report of this case, alleging that the accused persons have illegally taken over possession of his land and that they were continuously threatening to the informant and on 01.12.2022 while he was going on motorcycle to Saharanpur, accused-applicant No. 5 Washil stopped him and he abused and threatened to kill him and thereafter he fired a shot from a country made pistol and consequently the informant has sustained firearm injuries at his hand. The injury was superficial to muscle deep. The facts of the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. (supra), relied by learned counsel for the applicants, are quite different and that judgment pertains to the year 2013. In the aforesaid case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered several earlier judgements and has given detailed guidelines. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, an offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and such an offence has to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone and proceedings of such cases cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the case of Ramgopal (supra), relied by learned counsel for the applicants, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings have to be exercised carefully and that nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society, seriousness of the injury and voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim has to be considered. In the instant matter, it was also pointed out by learned AGA that the informant/victim is being threatened by the accused persons for compromise and he has submitted an affidavit before the police authority that he did not compromise the matter. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, applicants do not get any benefit from the case laws referred by learned counsel for the applicants.

10. Considering the fact that in the alleged incident, victim/informant has sustained firearm injuries and that on the behalf of the State it was submitted that the informant is being threatened by the accused persons for compromise and he was coerced to enter into the compromise, this Court does not find it a fit case for quashing the proceedings of the case on the basis of alleged compromise. Accordingly the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.10.2023

Anand