Allahabad High Court denies quashing application on compromise between parties

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application observing that, “the acts allegedly committed by the petitioners involve firing gunshots in broad daylight hitting two persons in their chests and such offense is a very serious offense.

The Court is of the view that the proceedings of the case against the petitioners cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties”.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari and 2 Others.

By means of the application the applicants are seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 26.03.2015 filed in respect of Case under Sections 307, 323 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and proceedings of Session Trial pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional District and Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar arising out of the aforesaid charge sheet on the ground that on 09.12.2022 a compromise has been entered into between the parties settling the dispute and now the opposite parties no 2 to 4 do not want to pursue the matter.

The aforesaid case was initiated on the basis of an FIR bearing Case lodged on 19.12.2014 by the opposite party no 2 Ram Prasad against the petitioners stating that the petitioner no 2 Narendra Kumar was raising construction of a wall on land in dispute.

The informant asked him not to raise any construction till the decision of the court whereupon the petitioner no 1, who is son of petitioner no 2, started beating the informant. When the informant’s sons came to intervene, petitioner no 2 Narendra shot at the informant’s son Sanjeev and another accused person shot at Umesh, another son of the informant. Petitioner no 1 Sanni assaulted the informant with a rod causing injury to his head. The informant’s youngest son Santosh was also shot at but he was not hurt.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner no 1 Sunni under Sections 323 and 307 IPC and against the petitioner no 2 Narendra for offences under Section 30 of the Arms Act and on 08.11.2015, the learned court passed an order summoning the petitioner nos 1 & 2 for being tried for the aforesaid offenses.

In his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the informant had stated that petitioner no 2 had fired at his son Sunni and petitioner no 3 Sushil had fired a shot at his second son Umesh. Sunni had assaulted the informant with the iron rod causing injury on his head and a shot was fired towards his youngest son Santosh also he was not hurt.

The injured Sanjeev also stated that petitioner no 2 Narendra had fired a shot at him. The other injured Umesh Kumar stated that petitioner no 2 had fired a shot at Sanjeev and the petitioner no 3 Sushil, son of Jamuna had fired a shot which hit him.

The Court noted that as per the averments made in support of the application, the parties have entered into a compromise. A copy of the compromise has been annexed with the affidavit, which does not bear any date. It has been mentioned in the compromise that the accused persons and the injured persons have entered into a compromise and the injured persons have pardoned the accused persons and they do not want any proceedings to continue against the accused persons.

From a perusal of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise are that there is no thumb rule in this regard and each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of its case. Before exercising such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and the power to quash is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. Such a power is not to be exercised in cases involving heinous and serious offenses, which include offenses under Section 307 IPC, the Court said.

The Court further noted that,

In the case, the FIR allegations are that a land dispute is existing between the parties regarding which a case was pending. In spite of the pendency of the civil dispute, the accused persons started raising a wall at about 10 a.m and upon being objected by the informant and his sons, petitioner no 2 fired a shot which hit the informant’s son Sanjeev on his chest and the petitioner no 3 fired another shot which hit Umesh, another son of the informant, on his chest. The medico-legal examination reports of Sanjeev and Umesh are available on record, which support the FIR allegations. The statements of the informant and his injured sons Sanjeev and Umesh also support the FIR allegations. The police had submitted a charge sheet against petitioners no 1 & 2 and thereafter the name of the petitioner no 3 was added on 25.10.2021 on an application filed under Section 319 CrPC.

Since there was an old property dispute between the parties, the accused persons were known to the informant and his sons. The incident took place in broad daylight and there is no reason to doubt the identity of the persons who caused the incident.

“The accused persons have sought quashing of the charge-sheet and the proceedings merely on the ground that on 09.12.2022 the parties have entered into a compromise stating that the informant and the injured persons have pardoned the accused persons and they do not want any further proceedings in the matter and the accused persons may get the proceedings terminated in terms of the compromise. The acts allegedly committed by the petitioners involve firing gunshots in broad daylight and hitting two persons in their chests such offense is a very serious offense and the material on record, namely, the medico-legal examination report of the injured persons and the statements recorded during the investigation, fully support the FIR allegations. The offense alleged has to be treated as a crime against society and not against the injured sons of the informant alone and, therefore, the Court is of the view that the informant and his sons have no authority to pardon the accused persons.

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the proceedings of the case against the petitioners cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. The application under Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings initiated on the basis thereof, on the sole ground that the parties have entered into a compromise”, the Court observed while dismissing the application.