Allahabad High Court
Sompal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116349 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 487 of 2020 Applicant :- Sompal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A for State.
2. The present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, praying for quashing the entire proceeding, on the basis of compromise between the parties, originated upon a charge-sheet dated 11.12.2018 in Case No.18 of 2019 (State vs. Sompal & Others) in Case Crime No.0353 of 2018 under Sections 147, 323 of IPC, Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
3. Both the counsels submit that the parties have arrived into a compromise and settled their dispute and an affidavit in this regard was filed before the learned Trial Court which has been examined and a report thereof has now been placed before this Court.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of judgement of Supreme Court in State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan and Others, 2019 5 SCC 688, relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinafter:
" 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, 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 [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (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 [Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-4-2019.] .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."
5. It is a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court could be exercised and accordingly the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed, however, applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 will deposit Rs. 1,000/- each before the District Legal Authority within a period of four weeks, in default, recovery proceedings will be initiated to recover the said amount.
6. A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court for necessary compliance.
7. Accordingly, application is disposed of.
8. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024 P. Pandey