High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25449 of 2022 Applicant :- Santosh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Ram Bahu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent. The instant petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Crl. case no. 30637 of 2021 under Section 307, 504 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun as well as charge sheet dated 5.6.2021 and cognizance order dated 17.12.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although matter relates to Section 307 IPC but both the parties have settled their dispute and therefore, on this ground of compromise executed between the parties, proceeding pending against the applicant may be quashed. He further submitted that even during the course of further investigation in the subsequent statement injured-Sanjay who is no more at present specifically stated that he accidentally sustained firearm injury but in spite of that charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer in the present case but after his death, opposite party no. 2, the wife of injured Sanjay has amicably settled the dispute with the applicant and therefore, proceeding pending against the applicant may be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. Per contra, learned submitted that it is a case under Section 307 IPC in which there is allegation that applicant opened fire upon injured Sanjay who lodged the FIR and due to the shot of applicant-Sanjay sustained injury on his stomatch, therefore, it cannot be that there was no intention of applicant to commit the murder of the injured-Sanjay and it appears that during investigation, in first statement injured specifically stated against the applicant but later on, with the connivance of the Investigating Officer on asking question in this regard, he stated that he accidentally sustained injuries and after his death his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2 compromised the matter with the applicant but law is settled that offence under section 307 IPC is a heinous offence in which on the basis of the compromise, proceeding cannot be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. From the perusal of the record it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged by injured-Sanjay against the applicant on 28.10.2020 under Section 307, 504 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant opened fire and due to the fire opened by applicant, informant-Sanjay, the injured sustained fire arm injury on his stomach, therefore, clearly an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the applicant, however, unfortunately Sanjay the victim of the case has been expired duing the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic. It appears that after his death his wife i.e. oppposite party no. 2 settled the dispute with applicant who is the accused in the present case. The law is well settled by the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] that in heinous offences proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties and observed in para- 13 as under:- Paragraph no. 13 of the said judgement is reproduced herein- 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 herein-above; (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 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." In view of the above, as there is allegation against the applicant that he caused injury on the stomach of the injured through fire arm, therefore, it is a case which falls under the category of heinous offence in which proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. Accordingly, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. Order Date :- 9.9.2022 Ankita Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.14 18:37:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad