The Allahabad High Court has dismissing an application observing the offences alleged to have been committed by applicants are crimes against society and it cannot be said the dispute is private in nature and does not affect the society at large. Therefore, proceedings of such cases should not be quashed over settlement between the parties.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing an Application under Section 482 filed by Bundu And 13 Others.
The application has been moved by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Garhmukteshwar, Hapur, District Hapur as well as chargesheet dated 26.8.2020 and cognizance order dated 1.10.2020.
The informant lodged FIR of the case on 7.5.2020 against the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC at PS Simbhawali, District Hapur and according to the FIR, applicants who are 14 in numbers assaulted with intention to commit murder of Inam and Danish (injured persons of the case) and they opened fire from countrymade pistols and Inam and Danish sustained serious injuries.
After registration of the FIR, investigation of the matter was commenced and during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statements of opposite party no 2, the informant and injured persons Inam and Danish and also recorded the statement of other eye-witnesses and obtained injury reports of both the injured and submitted charge sheet against the applicants on 26.8.2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149 307, 504, 506 IPC.
In the incident, two persons sustained injuries and according to the statement of injured Inam, applicant no 2 caused fire arm injury to him and Danish through a country-made pistol. The other injured Danish in his statement recorded during investigation also stated that applicants assaulted them with intention to commit murder and applicant nos 2 and 6 opened fire from country-made pistols and due to fire opened by them, he and Inam sustained injuries.
The Court noted,
From the perusal of the injury report of Inam, it appears that he received a lacerated wound bone deep on the right side of scalp and bleeding was present and doctor also noted that at the time of his medical examination, three episodes of vomiting and one episode of seizure occurred and was advised CT Scan of head. From the perusal of his CT Scan report, it reflects that a haemorrhage in the right parietal temporal region and depressed fracture of frontal bone was found and according to the doctor, injury was dangerous to life.
Another injured Danish was also medically examined on 15.5.2020 and according to his injury report, he sustained one abrasion on the right side of forehead and a contusion of right side of upper back of scapular region and according to the doctor, both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object.
From the perusal of the injury report of both the injured persons, it appears that injured Inam sustained serious fire arm injury, which was, according to the doctor who conducted CT Scan, dangerous to his life.
It appears that after submission of the chargesheet on 26.8.2022, cognizance was taken and notices were issued to the applicants and during the pendency of the case before committal, applicants, opposite party no 2-informant and injured persons Inam and Danish compromised the matter and in this regard, they executed a compromise on 31.5.2022. Applicants want to quash proceedings pending before trial court on the basis of settlement dated 31.5.2022.
The counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have been made accused in the case on the basis of false and frivolous allegations and they neither assaulted nor they caused any injury to anyone but in spite of that chargesheet has been filed against them in the matter.
He next submitted that applicants and opposite party no 2, the informant and injured persons are residents of same village and locality and they also having some relation, therefore, with the interference of the respected persons of the locality, they have settled their dispute and in this regard, a compromise has been executed between them on 31.5.2022, the proceedings pending against the applicants may be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.
He also submitted that he is pressing the application only on the basis of compromise executed between the parties and not on the merits of the case.
The counsel further submitted that as both parties have amicably settled their dispute, no fruitful result would be served if prosecution will continue as ultimate result of the trial would be the acquittal.
He said that if proceeding of the case is quashed on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties then their relationship would be cordial one and they can live peacefully, therefore, he submits even if, the case is of Section 307 IPC, proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.
Per contra, AGA submitted that as there are serious allegations against the applicants and present matter relates to Sections 147, 148, 149 307, 504,506 IPC, therefore, on the basis of compromise, proceedings pending against the applicants should not be quashed.
He next submitted that although the Court can exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to scuttle the proceeding, on the basis of compromise even in non-compoundable offences but where the offences are serious and heinous in nature which affects the society at large then the Court should not quash the proceedings pending against the accused persons on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
The Court observed,
From the decisions noticed above, the law as it stands is that although this Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC even in non-compoundable offence and can quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties even in the cases of non-compoundable offences but while exercising its jurisdiction this Court must consider the fact that whether the proceeding relates to any serious and heinous offences and whether the crime in question has impact over the society. In cases of serious nature which affects the society at large this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.
The three-judges bench of the Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) specifically observed that an offence u/s 307 IPC is serious offence which affects the society at large and proceedings of such offence should not be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties, however, the Apex Court also held that considering the nature of injury and weapon used proceedings relate to an offence u/s 307 IPC an also quashed by this Court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties.
Bearing in mind the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, the Court analyzes the facts of the case.
“The case relates to the offence u/s 307 IPC in which as many as fourteen accused persons were involved and firearms weapons were used. Two persons sustained injuries and one injured was found dangerous to life and after investigation, chargesheet against the applicants has been filed u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC.
Thus, prima facie it appears that all the applicants with common objects participated in commission of crime. Such offences have a serious impact upon the society and trials should continue in the public interest and accused persons of such serious and heinous offences should be punished to deter others from committing similar offences. In the case in hand, offences for which applicants are facing prosecution are neither offences arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or has any element of civil dispute, therefore, if in such cases settlement even if arrived at between the accused persons and complainant-injured persons, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the charge sheet or proceeding pending against the accused persons.
The case in hand is a State case in which after investigation, complicity of the applicants were found correct and charge sheet against them has been submitted, therefore, it has become a matter between the State and the accused and it is the duty of the State to ensure the law and order and to prosecute offender and in such cases, informant or the victim has no right in law to drop the case of non-compoundable offence of serious and heinous nature which badly affects the society.
Therefore, in my view the offences alleged to have been committed by applicants are crimes against the society and it cannot be said that the dispute is private in nature and does not affect the society at large. Therefore, proceedings of such cases should not be quashed on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties,” the Court observed while dismissing the application.