Allahabad High Court
Diwan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 November, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11675 of 2019 Petitioner :- Diwan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Compromise affidavit along with supplementary filed today by Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Raj Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2018 in Case Crime No. 1822 of 2018, under Sections 307 IPC, P.S. Vrindavan, District- Mathura.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as parties have amicably settled their dispute, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed, in the light of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
The Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (3 Judges), AIR 2019 SC 1296, while resolving the conflict between Narinder Singh (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, as regards quashment of proceedings under Article 226 / Section 482 CrPC on the ground of compromise / settlement, held as under: -
"10. Now so far as the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) is concerned, this Court in paragraph 29.6 admitted that the 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, this Court further observed that 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. Its further corroboration with the medical evidence or other evidence is to be seen, which will be possible during the trial only. Hence, the decision of this case in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) shall be of no assistance to the accused in the present case.
11. ...
12. ...
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."
The upshot of the above legal position is that non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Article 226 of Constitution of India/ 482 CrPC, which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial / family disputes and parties have resolved theirdisputes amicably, as such offences are private in nature having no impact on the society. But heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc and the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement / compromise. However, where the High Court finds that these offences are merely incorporated without any material to support, it can quash the proceedings relating to such offences. For this purpose, it would be open for the High Court to examine whether the materials collected, if proved, would lead to framing of charge. This exercise is only permissible, when a charge sheet is filed or a charge is framed and / or during the trial, not when the matter is under investigation.
In the present case, an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed by the accused, matter is still under investigation, FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage on the basis of settlement/ compromise between the parties, as the alleged offence is heinous and against the society.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Anuj Singh