Vinod Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8515 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vinod Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 3 April, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18482
 
Court No. - 12
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2575 of 2025
 
Applicant :- Vinod Singh And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Deep
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar holding brief of Sri Surya Deep on behalf of the applicants, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and Sri Rajat Pratap Singh on behalf of respondent No.s 2 and 3.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants has informed this Court that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties where they have agreed not to prosecute the said criminla case against each other. The said agreement dated 1.2.2025 has been duly verified by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC (14th Finance Commission), Hardoi vide order dated 6.3.2025 (annexed as annexure No.4 to this petition) where the parties had appeared and expressed their willingness with regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties.

3. The only question which remains to be decided in the present case is as to whether the proceedings can be quashed in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, especially considering the fact that trial is proceeding in complaint case No.1829 of 2018, sessions trial No.268 of 2019 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC relating to police station Lonar, District Hardoi. So far as Section 307 IPC is concerned undoubtedly it is a serious offence and the Court has to be careful in accepting compromise where the accused is alleged to have committed the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

4. This aspect of the matter has been considered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 688. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has further relied upon the judgments in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of Supreme Court are quoted herein above:-

14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] is concerned, in Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] , this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 CrPC and the powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 CrPC and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] , the very Bench ultimately concluded in para 29 as under: (SCC pp. 482-84)

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

*****************

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 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 the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons 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. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings 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. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments indicates that the Court has applied its mind to the nature of the offence and the injuries sustained and also stage of the trial. In the present case, statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, injured witnesses has already been recorded who have supported the case of the prosecution and even cross examination is over and that only injured witness/complainant Ram Bharose has been examined who has supported the case of the prosecution and accordingly the other relevant aspect of the matter in the present case is with regard to the nature of the injuries.

6. Section 307 IPC has been invoked on account of the fact that the complainant had sustained firearm injury in his chest and according to medical report dated 3.7.2017 and 10.10.2017 where the doctor has examined the x-ray report and opined that there is injury on left side of upper abdomen which injury is simple in nature caused by firearm injury. The said doctor Sher Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, Hardoi has also been examined as PW 5 during the said trial where he has stated that the injuries are simple in nature and with regard to the said injuries which have been pointed out as being simple in nature and the conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC wold be rather remote possible.

7. Sri Sher Singh, E.M.O., District Hospital, has been examined as PW 5 during the said trial where he has stated that the injuries are simple in nature and accordingly with regard to the said injuries which have been opined as being simple in injury, the conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC would be rather a remote possibility.

8. Despite the fact that statements is already recorded but subsequently they have entered into a compromise and considering the nature of the injuries we find that the present case is not a case that would fall under the category of heinous and serious offence as per the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra). Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the compromise entered into between the parties deserves to be accepted as the possibility of conviction of the accused in the case would be rather remote.

8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore, the proceedings of sessions trial No.268 of 2019 arising out complaint case No.1829 of 2018 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC relating to police station Lonar, District Hardoi titled as 'State Vs. Vinod Singh and others' are quashed.

10. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 3.4.2025

RKM.