High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Amar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant(s), Sri Ashok Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State, as well as Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.138/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0118/2021, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 506, 143, 148 and 149 IPC lodged at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, quashing of the charge sheet dated 09.01.2022 filed in the aforesaid crime number, as well as quashing of the order dated 06.08.2022 by means of which cognizance of the offence has been taken and the applicants have been summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections of the IPC on the ground that the parties have arrived at compromise/settlement.

4. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 26.04.2021 against the seven applicants, stating that due to political rivalry the accused persons has assaulted the informant's father and uncle at about 12:15 in the night on 26.04.2021. Anshu and Netrapal (the applicant nos.7 and 1) had fired shots with a country made pistol which hit the informant's father.

5. Only one person was treated medically whose medico legal examination report mentions that he had himself gone to the hospital and had alleged to have sustained a firearm injury in left lower limb. No other injury was suffered by him. The X-ray examination report shows artifact at left iliac blade level, likely bullet.

6. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons on 09.01.2022 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 06.08.2022.

7. In para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that merely charges have been framed by the trial Court and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. Meanwhile, the parties have entered into a compromise on

09.04.2024 stating that the informant and the victim had lodged the FIR on the basis of information given by some person and they themselves had not seen the accused persons causing injury to any person. Now, the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and they do not want any proceeding to continue.

8. The compromise has been verified by means of an order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the trial Court.

9. Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, has accepted the compromise and has supported the prayer for quashing of the proceeding.

10. In Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online All 106, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688 wherein it has been held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Although the offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of serious and heinous offences, 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 and the High Court should 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, the High Court may consider the nature of injury sustained, whether it was inflicted on any vital part of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Such an exercise would be permissible only after collection of the evidence and submission of the charge sheet and not when the matter is still being investigated.

11. In Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2025) 4 SCC 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to and relied upon the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (supra).

12. Although the FIR and the charge sheet filed in the present case mentions section 307 IPC, the victim had himself gone to hospital on his own, he had suffered single injury in left lower limb, which is not a vital part and before commencement of the trial the parties have entered into an amicable settlement for closure of the criminal proceedings.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would not serve the interest of justice as it would result in persecution of the applicants only.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.138/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0118/2021, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 506, 143, 148 and 149 IPC lodged at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, including the charge sheet dated 09.01.2022 as well as the order of cognizance/summoning dated 06.08.2022, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Sri Amar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant(s), Sri Ashok Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State, as well as Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.138/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0118/2021, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 506, 143, 148 and 149 IPC lodged at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, quashing of the charge sheet dated 09.01.2022 filed in the aforesaid crime number, as well as quashing of the order dated 06.08.2022 by means of which cognizance of the offence has been taken and the applicants have been summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections of the IPC on the ground that the parties have arrived at compromise/settlement.

4. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 26.04.2021 against the seven applicants, stating that due to political rivalry the accused persons has assaulted the informant's father and uncle at about 12:15 in the night on 26.04.2021. Anshu and Netrapal (the applicant nos.7 and 1) had fired shots with a country made pistol which hit the informant's father.

5. Only one person was treated medically whose medico legal examination report mentions that he had himself gone to the hospital and had alleged to have sustained a firearm injury in left lower limb. No other injury was suffered by him. The X-ray examination report shows artifact at left iliac blade level, likely bullet.

6. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons on 09.01.2022 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 06.08.2022.

7. In para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that merely charges have been framed by the trial Court and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. Meanwhile, the parties have entered into a compromise on

09.04.2024 stating that the informant and the victim had lodged the FIR on the basis of information given by some person and they themselves had not seen the accused persons causing injury to any person. Now, the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and they do not want any proceeding to continue.

8. The compromise has been verified by means of an order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the trial Court.

9. Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, has accepted the compromise and has supported the prayer for quashing of the proceeding.

10. In Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online All 106, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688 wherein it has been held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Although the offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of serious and heinous offences, 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 and the High Court should 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, the High Court may consider the nature of injury sustained, whether it was inflicted on any vital part of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Such an exercise would be permissible only after collection of the evidence and submission of the charge sheet and not when the matter is still being investigated.

11. In Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2025) 4 SCC 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to and relied upon the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (supra).

12. Although the FIR and the charge sheet filed in the present case mentions section 307 IPC, the victim had himself gone to hospital on his own, he had suffered single injury in left lower limb, which is not a vital part and before commencement of the trial the parties have entered into an amicable settlement for closure of the criminal proceedings.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would not serve the interest of justice as it would result in persecution of the applicants only.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.138/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0118/2021, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 506, 143, 148 and 149 IPC lodged at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, including the charge sheet dated 09.01.2022 as well as the order of cognizance/summoning dated 06.08.2022, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench