Allahabad High Court
Ram Avatar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 November, 2022
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14002 of 2022 Applicant :- Ram Avatar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh, Suresh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Ajit Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sanjay Singh and Suresh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
By means of this application, applicant has prayed for quashing the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.8.2017 and charge sheet No.321/2016 dated 24.10.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.3609 of 2017 (State Vs. Ram Avatar) arising out of Case Crime No.463 of 20016 under Sections 452, 354B, 323, 504, 506, 324, 376 and 511 I.P.C. Police Station-Pilkhuwa, district-Hapur pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.
There are serious allegations against the applicant which are found to be true during investigation and presently he is facing trial for an offence under sections 452, 354B, 323, 504, 506, 324, 376 and 511 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim/complainant has entered into a compromise with the applicant/accused which has been verified by the court concerned and prayed that despite being a non-compoundable offence, proceedings may be quashed. He further submits that there were cross criminal proceedings and the parties are resident of same village, therefore, proceedings may be quashed.
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others : (2019)5 SCC 688, in para 15 held as under:-
"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:
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."
(Emphasis supplied) In the present case, applicant is facing trial for the offences referred above, which are of a henious and serious nature and as observed in paragraph 15.2 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)these offence are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find it a fit case where exercise of inherent power of this Court may be used and criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis of a compromise. No argument is raised on merit to challenge the charge-sheet.
Accordingly, this application is rejected and trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of Case No.3609 of 2017 (State Vs. Ram Avatar) arising out of Case Crime No.463 of 20016 under Sections 452, 354B, 323, 504, 506, 324, 376 and 511 I.P.C. Police Station-Pilkhuwa, district-Hapur pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur and conclude the same expeditiously.
Interim order, if any, is vacated.
In case the applicant has not appeared before the court concerned, trial court shall take all coercive measure for his appearance.
Order Date :- 10.11.2022 SB (Serial No.4 out of 527 fresh cases)