Allahabad High Court
Virendra Singh And 9 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25488
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17863 of 2024
Applicant :- Virendra Singh And 9 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Chakravarti Sisodia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Connected Alongwith
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28110 of 2010
Applicant :- Virendra And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chakravarti Sisodia,Som Veer
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Applicants-Accused have approached this Court through the applications under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge sheet dated 4.6.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2031 of 2010; titled State vs. Chandrapal and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 65A of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Chandapa, District Hathras, on the basis of compromise dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure No. '7').
Learned counsel for applicants has argued that during pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the dispute, and in this regard, he drew the attention of the Court to the compromise dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure No. 7). According to learned counsel, in view of this development, the prosecution of the applicants would be a futile exercise, as chances of their conviction are extremely bleak, therefore, he prays that the impugned proceedings be quashed, in the interest of justice.
The prayer is opposed by learned State Counsel, who has argued that the accused persons attacked the complainant and fired a gun shot resulting in a serious injury to the injured Rekha, inviting the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and the complainant clearly stated about the presence of the applicants at the place of occurrence. Learned State Counsel further submits that injured had suffered four injuries and the offences are serious, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the solitary ground of compromise set up in this application for quashing of the criminal proceedings is not worth acceptance considering the nature and seriousness of the offence. No doubt, by interpretation, the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have injected some elasticity in quashing criminal proceedings, relating to the non-compoundable offences, through exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, but such a relaxation cannot be construed as an absolute one and would depend upon various factors including the magnitude of the offences, manner of the commission of offences, weapons used in the crime etc. and its effect on the society.
By now it is well settled that the penal laws are aimed to deter the citizens from resorting to the commission of crime, and if, the offences of heinous nature are allowed to be compromised, it would adversely impact the object of penal laws. If, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permitted to be exercised in respect of the heinous crimes, then it would certainly encourage the criminals to take law in their own hands. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court while examining the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise in relation to the serious offences made the following observations:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences."
Apart from the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 1296 further laid down the principles for quashing of the criminal proceedings on the strength of compromise, in non-compoundable offences by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:-
"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.
14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused."
Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the sole ground of compromise raised by the applicants for quashing of the criminal proceedings is unacceptable.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the applications are dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2025
Brijesh
