Allahabad High Court
Anirudh Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 March, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6011 of 2021 Applicant :- Anirudh Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Chandani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant and learned AGA for the State.
The present application has been filed seeking quashing the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet and cognizance order dtaed 20.8.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 325 of 2015 (State vs. Prince and others) under sections 308, 326, 323, 342, 504 IPC read with section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.
The counsel for the parties agree that the matter has been compromised in between the parties and prayed that the proceedings may be quashed on account of compromise. A compromise deed has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed today. The FIR, in question, was filed on 03.08.2015 which was registered as Case Crime No. 325 of 2015. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the persons named therein came to the use of the victim and showing themselves to be officers wanted to take away the informant and hurled abuses on the informant and subsequently by using force made him to sit on the seat of bike. Later on, the informant was taken to Chhatarpur and kept in a room tied and was beaten with belts and was subsequently left. In pursuance of the said FIR, the matter was investigated in the medical which is on record. The injury shown contusions on the body of the victim and based upon the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 20.8.2015 stating that the offence under sections 308, 326, 323, 342, 504 IPC read with section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act is made out against the accused in the said FIR.
The matter has been compromised subsequently as such the prayer has been made for quashing of the charge-sheet.
A perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet basically shows the intent of the accused was the somehow take away the informant and force was used. The statements on record which are relied in the charge-sheet prima facie make out that section 308 IPC was levelled without there being any materials to justify the charging of accused under section 308 IPC.
I have perused the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 688 wherein the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed as and when the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing of offences which are non-compoundable. The Supreme Court relied upon the judgement of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein the Court had concluded in para 29 as under:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences underSection 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute 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.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. 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, 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
In view of the law laid down, as discussed above, and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (supra) and, on perusal of the FIR and the charge- sheet, I am of the firm view that there was no occasion of material so as to justify the trial against the accused under section 308 IPC.
In view of the compromise and the statement that has arrived and agreed by the counsel at the bar, the proceedings of Case Crime No. 325 of 2015 (State vs. Prince and others) under sections 308, 326, 323, 342, 504 IPC read with section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi are hereby quashed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021 Puspendra