Allahabad High Court
Tarun Verma @ Tarun Chaudhary And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. ... on 14 September, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59025
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8909 of 2023
Applicant :- Tarun Verma @ Tarun Chaudhary And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushlendra Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
The advocates are abstaining from judicial work.
Applicant no. 1, namely, Tarun Verma @ Tarun Chaudhary and opposite party no. 2 namely, Bal Krishna, are present in person before this court.
Sri B.N.Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State is also present.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 03-02-2016 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)-Ist/Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur as well as the complaint case No. 880 of 2015, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)/F.T.C.-IInd, Balrampur and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 880 of 2015, under sections 307,392 of I.P.C., Police Station-Gaura Chauraha,District-Balrampur pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)/F.T.C.-IInd, Balrampur.
The applicant no. 1,Tarun Verma @ Tarun Chaudhary submitted that the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 have entered into a compromise and the compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 28-08-2023 and they have amicably settled their dispute. Now there is no grievance or dispute in between the parties and they have put their dispute at rest.
It has specifically been stated in the memo of the instant application that it is a case of no injury and one of the co-accused person died on 24-04-2023.
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."
In view of aforesaid, it is stated that the nature of injuries are as such wherein this court can invoke jurisdiction while exercising its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the criminal proceedings initiated in the instant matter would be a futile exercise and therefore, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Complaint Case No. 880 of 2015, may be quashed.
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 two months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned summoning order dated 03-02-2016 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)-Ist/Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur as well as the complaint case No. 880 of 2015, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)/F.T.C.-IInd, Balrampur and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 880 of 2015, under sections 307,392 of I.P.C., Police Station-Gaura Chauraha,District-Balrampur pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)/F.T.C.-IInd, Balrampur,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 :- 14.9.2023
AKS
