High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 77 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131482 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20692 of 2024 Applicant :- Maiku @ Ramnarayan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Trivedi,Shiv Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. Heard Sri Shive Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records. 2. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Maiku @ Ramnarayan and Chhail Kumari with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding and summoning in case crime No. 81 of 2021 under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot in Session Case No. 378 of 2021 before Additional District Judge-I, Chitrakoot by way of compromise.
Legal Reasoning
The FIR of the matter was lodged on 05.07.2021 by Indrapal Yadav 3. the opposite party no.2 under Section 302 IPC against Kallu, Chhail Kumari, Maiku @ Ram Narayan, Raja, Shivmani and Phool Kumari with the allegation that his daughter Nirmala was married around 15 years back to Maiku @ Ram Narayan but the accused persons used to beat her for bringing money and used to torture her and her small children due to which out of fear she had spent a lot of time in her maternal grandfathers place. Her husband Maiku @ Ram Narayan visited his sasural many times and told the ladies there that he does not like Nirmala and would murder her. The other accused persons used to say that they would sell their 4-5 bighas land and would save Maiku @ Ram Narayan but they would murder Nirmala. Nirmala used to make complaint that her husband did not use to keep her properly and used to taunt her that her father is a poor person and did not give money in marriage. He has a lot of property and he with other accused persons would murder her and would solemnize another marriage. Around five months back, Nirmala was mercilessly beaten by them and was told that they have to purchase a tractor and she may arrange money from wherever she wants, after which she got frightened and came to her maternal house 2 and while being frightened told it to her father and told to save herself otherwise her in-laws would murder her as they used to beat her for money daily and now they are purchasing a tractor and are telling her that if she wants to live with her children also she should arrange for money for it. He then arranged Rs. 1.5 lakh and gave it to her which was given by her to her husband after which a tractor was purchased but the accused persons were not satisfied and used to assault and abuse her and her children daily. Many times Panchayat was called and the matter was settled. About one year back, the concerned police station on 100 Dial number was also called and matter was settled but the accused persons did not stop their acts and on 04.07.2021 they in conspiracy murdered her and hung her. When he reached the place of occurrence he was told by the son of Nirmala that she and her mother was assaulted by his father with the stick of Kulhari and was threatened and sent to the field to see buffaloes and then the other accused persons locked the door of the house and murdered her. A report be lodged and action be taken. 4. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 29.08.2021 was submitted against Chhail Kumari/mother-in-law, Maiku @ Ram Narayan/husband under Section 306 IPC. In so far as Kallu/father-in-law, Raja/devar, Shivmani/devrani and Phool Kumari/nand are concerned they were exonerated in the matter and their names were mentioned in column No. 12 in the charge sheet in the persons not being chargesheeted. The court concerned took cognizance upon the same vide order dated 06.09.2021 and summoned the accused persons. In the meantime subsequently a compromise dated 17.06.2023 was entered into between the accused Maiku @ Ram Narayan, Chhail Kumari and the first informant Indrapal Yadav which was filed before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chitrakoot. The applicants then approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings in pursuance of compromise dated 17.06.2023 in 482 petition numbered as Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 42999 of 2023 (Maiku @ Ramnarayan and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) in which another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2023 disposed of the same and directed that the compromise be filed before the court concerned and the same be verified. The said order reads as under:
Legal Reasoning
"1. Heard learned Shri Divyansh Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shiv Narayan Pandey, counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 378 of 2021, 3 arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2021, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Additional District Judge-I, Chitrakoot in pursuance of compromise dated 17.06.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 17.06.2023 has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this affidavit. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. 4. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? 6. 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. 7. For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chitrakoot 5. verified the said compromise vide order dated 10.01.2024, the said order reads as under: पत्रावली पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण हु ई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण मुकदमा वादी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण अभि(cid:25)युक्तगण " अभि(cid:25)युक्तगण मैकू उर्फ रामनरायण व छैल कुमारी मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता उर्फ रामनरायण व छैल कुमारी मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता! रामनरायण व छै ल कु मारी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण मय भिवद्वान अभि%वक्ता उपभि&’त। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण अभि(cid:25)युक्त पक्ष की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित की पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण ओर से माननी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित न्यायालय में योजित योभि/त मैकू उर्फ रामनरायण व छैल कुमारी मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता उर्फ रामनरायण व छैल कुमारी मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता! रामनारायण व अप्ली पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणके श हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणन अन्तग!त %ारा 482 अन्य बनाम राज्य उ०प्र० एवं अभियुक्तगण अन्य में योजित पाभिरत आदेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण भिदनोंभिकत 23.11.2023 के अनुक् रम में योजित सुलहनामा काग/ सं अभियुक्तगणख्या 25 क दाभि8ल भिकया गया। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण नम्बर 42999/2023 क के पक्ष की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजितकारान के ह&ताक्ष की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजितर व उ(cid:25)यपक्ष की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित की पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण ओर से दाभि8ल सुलहनामा 25 र्फ रामनरायण व छैल कुमारी मय विद्वान अधिवक्ताोटो की पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण भिश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणनाख्त उनके भिवद्वान अभि%वक्तागण द्वारा की पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण गयी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण और सुलहनामा त&दी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणक भिकया गया। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण माननी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित न्यायालय के आदेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण के अनुपालन में योजित उक्त 4 सुलहनामा माननी पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगणय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित न्यायालय को प्रेभि;त भिकया /ाय। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण पत्रावली पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण वा&ते अभिग्रम आदेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण भिनयत भितभि’ 06.03.2024 को पेश हुई। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण हो। मुकदमा वादी इन्द्रपाल यादव एवं अभियुक्तगण" The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the 6. prayers as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is 7. the husband and the applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Nirmala. It is submitted that parties have entered into a compromise dated 17.06.2023 which has been verified by the court concerned on 10.01.2023 in compliance of the order dated 23.01.2023 of this Court. It is submitted that looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise, the same has been verified, the proceedings of the Court be quashed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the 8. arguments of learned counsel for the applicants. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing on the basis of compromise and submitted that the present matter is such in which one person has lost her life and is a serious matter. It is submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against them on which cognizance has been taken and they have been summoned. It is submitted that the present case is a non compoundable offence and looking to the nature of the incident, the gravity of incident and also the relationship of the applicants with the deceased, this Court should not exercise its powers for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the compromise. It is submitted that as such the petition be dismissed. 10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant no.1 is the husband and the applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Nirmala who has died. There are serious allegations in the FIR against the applicants. The Investigating Agency found the same to be true and thus submitted charge sheet against them on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. The incident is grave in nature and a non compoundable offence. The Apex Court in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat : 11. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 has held that offence under Section 306 IPC is a grave and non - compoundable offence. Quashing of proceedings on the ground of compromise in grave offences which are non – compoundable offences is not permitted. It has been held as under: 5 “37. Offence under Section 306 of the IPC of abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence. Of course, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non- compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. 38. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society. 39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride- burning, etc. by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498- A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose. 40. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious noncompoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a noncompoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society. 41. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court discussed the circumstances in which the High Court quashes criminal proceedings in case of a non-compoundable offence, when there is a settlement between the parties and enunciated the following principles:— “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the 6 victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed”. 42. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 9 SCC 466 this Court held that in case of heinous and serious offences, which are generally to be treated as crime against society, it is the duty of the State to punish the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime. 43. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 this Court held:— “26. … availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. …” 7 44. In CBI v. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 this Court held:— “17. … In economic offences the Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned was well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved.” 45. In State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Vasanthi Stanley, (2016) 1 SCC 376 this Court held:— “14. … Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in CrPC relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score. 15. … A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system. …” 46. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujrat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 a three-Judge Bench of this Court quoted Narinder Singh (supra), Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), CBI v. Maninder Singh (supra), R. Vasanthi Stanley (supra) and held:— “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. 8 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 47. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 a three-Judge Bench discussed the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down the following principles:— “15. 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: 15.1. 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, 9 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; 15.2. 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; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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; 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 [(2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact 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.” 48. In Arun Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary, (2020) 3 SCC 736 this Court held:— “14. In another decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] it has been observed that in respect of offence against the society it is the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even where there is a settlement between the offender and victim the same shall not prevail since it is in 10 interests of the society that offender should be punished which acts as deterrent for others from committing similar crime. On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage than the theory of deterrent punishment. In such cases, the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering private dispute and thus may exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as the case may be. 15. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down, we are of the view that offences for which the appellants have been charged are in fact offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overriding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences. It is neither an offence arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or has any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a distinct footing. In such cases, settlement even if arrived at between the complainant and the accused, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the FIR or the charge-sheet. 16. Thus the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in refusing to quash the charge-sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties.” 49. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. 50. In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra), Section 307 of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306 of the IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised.” In view of the same, looking the facts and circumstances of the case, 12. the nature of the incident, the gravity of incident and also the relationship of the applicants with the deceased and also the cases of the Apex Court as 11 stated above, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 13.8.2024 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)