# Bundu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 582
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 25082 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bundu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47761
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 & 506 -
Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. even in non-compoundable offence
- can quash the proceedings on the basis
of settlement arrived at between the
parties
even
in
the
cases
of
noncompoundable offences - while exercising
its jurisdiction 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 -
Court should not exercise its jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings on the basis of compromise
executed between the parties. (Para -
13,22 )

Present case relates to offence u/s 307 IPC - 14
accused persons involved - fire arms weapons
used - Two persons sustained injuries - injury of
one injured found dangerous to life - all
applicants with common object participated in
commission of crime - offence u/s 307 IPC is
serious offence - Such offences have serious
impact upon society - prima facie cognizable
offence made out against applicants - question -
whether on the basis of compromise executed
between the parties proceeding of such cases
can be quashed. (Para -11,25 )

HELD:-
Offences
alleged
to
have
been
committed by applicants are crime against the
society. It cannot be said that the present
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.(Para -27 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 10 ILRA 582
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25082 of 2022

Bundu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 & 506 -
Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. even in non-compoundable offence
- can quash the proceedings on the basis
of settlement arrived at between the
parties
even
in
the
cases
of
noncompoundable offences - while exercising
its jurisdiction 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 -
Court should not exercise its jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings on the basis of compromise
executed between the parties. (Para -
13,22 )

Present case relates to offence u/s 307 IPC - 14
accused persons involved - fire arms weapons
used - Two persons sustained injuries - injury of
one injured found dangerous to life - all
applicants with common object participated in
commission of crime - offence u/s 307 IPC is
serious offence - Such offences have serious
impact upon society - prima facie cognizable
offence made out against applicants - question -
whether on the basis of compromise executed
between the parties proceeding of such cases
can be quashed. (Para -11,25 )

HELD:-
Offences
alleged
to
have
been
committed by applicants are crime against the
society. It cannot be said that the present
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.(Para -27 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Gian Singh Vs Punj., (2012)10 SCC 303

2. Nareinder Singh Vs St. of Punj. , (2014) 9
SCC 466

3.
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbathbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. &
anr. ,(2017) 9 SCC 641

4. St. of M.P. VS Laxmi Narayan & ors. , (2019)
5 SCC 688

5. Arun Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. Through its
Secretary & anr. , 2020 (3) SCC 736

6. Ram Gopal & anr. Vs St. of M.P. , 2021 0
Supreme (SC) 529

7. Daxaben Vs The St. of Guj. & ors. ,2022
LiveLaw (SC) 642

8. P. Dharmraj Vs Shanmugam & ors. , Crl.
Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants and Dr.
S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

2. The instant application has been
moved by the applicants with a prayer to
10 All. Bundu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
583
quash the entire proceeding of criminal
case no. 1093 of 2020 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 charge
sheet dated 26.8.2020 and cognizance order
dated 1.10.2020.

Brief facts of the case

3. Opposite party no. 2 lodged FIR of
the present case on 7.5.2020 against the
applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. 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 in the incident, 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 the 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.

4. In the incident two persons Inam
and
Danish
sustained
injuries
and
according to the statement of injured-Inam,
applicant no. 2 caused fire arm injury to
him and Danish through countrymade
pistol. Another 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
countrymade pistols and due to fire opened
by them he and Inam sustained injuries.
Injury reports of both the injured persons,
Inam and Danish are on record.

5. 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 to C.T. Scan of
head. From the perusal of his C.T. Scan
report which is copied by the Investigating
Officer
in
the
case
diary
during
investigation which is annexed alongwith
annexure-2, it reflects that a hemorrhage in
right
parietal
temporal
region
and
depressed fracture of frontal bone was
found and according to Doctor, injury was
dangerous to life.

6. Another injured-Danish was also
medically examined on 15.5.2020 and
according to his injury report he sustained
one abrasion of 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.

7. 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
C.T.
Scan,
dangerous to his life.

8. It appears that after submission of
the charge sheet 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
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compromise on 31.5.2022 (annexed as
annexure-6 to the affidavit). Applicants
want to quash proceedings pending before
trial court on the basis of settlement dated
31.5.2022.

Submissions on behalf of the applicants

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that applicants have been made
accused in the present 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 charge sheet
has been submitted against them in the
present 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 which
is annexed as annexure-6 to the affidavit in
support of the present application and
therefore, the proceedings pending against
the applicants may be quashed on the basis
of compromise executed between the
parties. He next submitted that he is
pressing the instant application only on the
basis of compromise executed between the
parties and not o

10. Learned counsel further submitted
that as both the parties have amicably
settled their dispute, therefore, no fruitful
result would be served if prosecution will
continue as ultimate result of the trial
would be the acquittal. He next submitted
that if proceeding of the present 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.

Submissions on behalf of the
State

11.

Per
contra,
learned 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, proceeding pending
against the applicants should not be
quashed. He next submitted that although
this Court can exercise its power under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
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 this Court should not quash the
proceedings pending against the accused
persons on the basis of compromise arrived
between
the
parties.
Learned
AGA
vehemently submitted that there is specific
allegation against the applicants who are
fourteen in numbers that they attacked
upon injured persons, Inam and Danish
with intention to commit their murder.
Applicant nos. 2 and 6 also opened fire
from their respective countrymade pistols
and due to the fire opened by them, two
persons i.e. Inam and Danish sustained
injures and one injury of injured-Inam was
on his head which was found dangerous to
life, therefore, instant case cannot be said to
be a case of private dispute and as
applicants attempted to commit murder of
two persons with country made pistols,
therefore, it is clearly a crime against the
society
and
in
such
heinous
cases,
proceedings cannot be nibbed from its bud
on the basis of the compromise executed
10 All. Bundu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
585
between the accused persons, informant
and injured persons, therefore, the instant
application moved by applicants being
devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

Analysis by the Court

11. I have given my anxious
consideration on the rival submissions and
perused the record of the case.

The brief facts of the case have
already been narrated in previous paragraphs.
The gist of the allegation is that applicants
who are fourteen in numbers assaulted and
tried to commit murder of two persons Inam
and Danish and applicant nos. 2 and 6 opened
fire from their countrymade pistols and due to
the shot made by them, two persons, Inam
and Danish sustained injuries. Although
injuries sustained by Danish were found
simple in nature but injury sustained by Inam
on his head was dangerous to life and both
the injured persons in their statements,
recorded during investigation, categorically
stated that all the applicants participated in
the incident and according to injured-Inam,
applicant no. 2 opened fire while as per
injured-Danish, applicant no. 2 and 6 both
opened fire from their countrymade pistols
and due to the fire opened by them, they
sustained injuries. Therefore, from the perusal
of the entire evidence available on record, it
is apparent that a prima facie cognizable
offence under sections 147, 148, 149 307,
504, 506 IPC is made out against the
applicants.

12. In case at hand, the question is,
whether on the basis of compromise executed
between the parties proceeding of such cases
can be quashed.

13. The Apex Court in catena of
judgements held that this Court can
exercise its power vested under section 482
Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of Section
320
Cr.P.C.
which
states
that
only
compoundable offence can be compounded
and this Court can even quash the
proceedings relate to non-compoundable
offences on the basis of the compromise
executed between the parties but at the
same time Apex Court cautioned that the
proceeding of serious and heinous offences
which affects the society at large, should
not be quashed on the basis of compromise
executed between the parties.

14. The three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. Punjab,
reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 discussed
the circumstances very elaborately and held
that this Court can quash the proceedings in
the cases of non-compoundable offences on
the basis of settlement arrived at between
the parties and observed as follow:-

"58. Where the High Court
quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between
the offender and the victim has been settled
although
the
offences
are
not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will
be an exercise in futility and justice in the
case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is
restored; securing the ends of justice being
the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt,
crimes are acts which have harmful effect
on the public and consist in wrongdoing
that seriously endangers and threatens the
well-being of the society and it is not safe
to leave the crime-doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute
amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been
made compoundable in law, with or without
the permission of the court. In respect of
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
serious
offences
like
murder,
rape,
dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental
depravity under IPC or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, the
settlement between the offender and the
victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However,
certain
offences
which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear
civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile,
commercial,
financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences
arising
out
of
matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is basically
to the victim and the offender and the
victim have settled all disputes between
them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such
offences
have
not
been
made
compoundable, the High Court may within
the framework of its inherent power, quash
the
criminal
proceeding
or
criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the
face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of the offender being convicted
and
by
not
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above
list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each
case will depend on its own facts and no
hard-and-fast category can be prescribed".

15. In Nareinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2014) 9 SCC 466, the
Supreme Court held that in case of heinous
and serious offences, which are generally
to be treated as crime against society, it is
the duty of the State to punish the offender.
Hence, even when there is a settlement, the
view of the offender will not prevail since it
is in the interest of society that the offender
should be punished to deter others from
committing a similar crime.

16. The Three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and Others V. State of Gujrat and
Another reported in [(2017) 9 SCC 641],
after discussing its earlier judgements
observed as follows:-

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does
not confer new powers. It only recognises and
preserves powers which inhere in the High
Court.

16.2.
The
invocation
of
the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first
information report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to
quash under Section 482 is attracted even if
the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion
whether a criminal proceeding or complaint
should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
10 All. Bundu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a
complaint or first information report should
be quashed on the ground that the offender
and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with
a plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7.
As
distinguished
from
serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding if
in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception
to the principle set out in propositions 16.8.
and
16.9. above.
Economic offences
involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the State have implications which
lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanor. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

17. The Three Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh V.
Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in (2019)
5 SCC 688 laid down the following
principles:-

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
noncompoundable 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
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
(supra) should be read harmoniously and
to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable 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."

18. The Apex Court in the case of
Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh Through its Secretary and
Another reported in 2020 (3) SCC 736,
held as under:-

"14. In another decision in
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra)
it has been observed that in respect of
offence against the society it is the duty to
punish the offender. Hence, even where
there is a settlement between the offender
and victim the same shall not prevail since
10 All. Bundu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589
it is in interests of the society that offender
should be punished which acts as
deterrent for others from committing
similar crime. On the other hand, there
may be offences falling in the category
where the correctional objective of criminal
law would have to be given more weightage
than the theory of deterrent punishment. In
such cases, the court may be of the opinion
that a settlement between the parties would
lead to better relations between them and
would resolve a festering private dispute
and thus may exercise power under Section
482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings or
the complaint or the FIR as the case may
be.

19. The Apex Court in case of Ram
Gopal & Another Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in [2021 0 Supreme (SC)
529] had occasioned to discuss the issue and
observed in paragraph -14 as follows:-

14. In other words, grave or
serious offences or offences which involve
moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on
the social and moral fabric of the society or
involve matters concerning public policy,
cannot be construed betwixt two individuals
or groups only, for such offences have the
potential to impact the society at large.
Effacing
abominable
offences
through
quashing process would not only send a
wrong signal to the community but may also
accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous
habitual or professional offenders, who can
secure a ''settlement' through duress, threats,
social boycotts, bribes or other dubious
means. It is well said that "let no guilty man
escape, if it can be avoided."

20. The Supreme Court in case of
Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & others
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642 observed as
follows:-

"38. However, before exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or
criminal proceedings, the High Court, as
observed above, has to be circumspect and
have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which
are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society cannot be quashed on the
basis of a compromise between the offender
and the complainant and/or the victim.
Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity
and even abetment to commit suicide are
neither private nor civil in nature. Such
crimes are against the society. In no
circumstances can prosecution be quashed on
compromise, when the offence is serious and
grave and falls within the ambit of crime
against society.

39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or
complaints relating to grave and serious
offences only on basis of an agreement with
the complainant, would set a dangerous
precedent, where complaints would be
lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to
extract
money
from
the
accused.
Furthermore, financially strong offenders
would go scot free, even in cases of grave
and serious offences such as murder, rape,
brideburning,
etc.
by
buying
off
informants/complainants and settling with
them. This would render otiose provisions
such as Sections 306, 498A, 304-B etc.
incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with
a specific social purpose.

"40. In Criminal Jurisprudence,
the position of the complainant is only that
of the informant. Once an FIR and/or
criminal complaint is lodged and a
criminal case is started by the State, it
becomes a matter between the State and the
accused. The State has a duty to ensure that
law and order is maintained in society. It is
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the state to prosecute offenders. In case
of grave and serious non-compoundable
offences
which
impact
society,
the
informant and/or complainant only has the
right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring
that justice is done by conviction and
punishment of the offender. An informant
has no right in law to withdraw the
complaint of a non-compoundable offence
of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature,
which impacts society."

21. The Supreme Court in the case of
P. Dharmraj Vs. Shanmugam and others
decided on 8th September 2022 in Crl.
Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2022, after
discussing in earlier judgements observed
in para-42 as follows:-

"Thus it is clear from the march
of law that the Court has to go slow even
while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482
Cr.PC
or
Article
226
of
the
Constitution in the matter of quashing of
criminal proceedings on the basis of a
settlement reached between the parties,
when the offences are capable of having an
impact not merely on the complainant and
the accused but also on others."

22. From the decisions noticed above,
the law as it stands is that although this
Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings on the basis of compromise
executed between the parties.

23. 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.

24. Bearing in mind, the above
principles laid down by the Apex Court, I
would analyze the fact of the present case.

25. The present case relates to the
offence u/s 307 IPC in which as many as
fourteen accused persons were involved
and fire arms weapons were used. Two
persons sustained injuries and injury of 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 object participated in commission
of crime. Such offences have serious
impact upon the society and trial 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
10 All. Km. Geeta Vs. State of U.P.
591
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.

26. 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 noncompoundable offence of serious and heinous
nature which badly affects the society.

27. Therefore in my view the offences
alleged to have been committed by applicants
are crime against the society and it can not be
said that the present 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.

28.

Therefore,
from
the
above
discussion, I find no merit in the argument
advanced
by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants. Accordingly, the instant application
is devoid of merit and is, hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 591
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25851 of 2021
Km. Geeta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Deepak Yadav

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 311 - Power to summon
material witness, or examine person
present - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 504, 506,
115 & 34 - fairness of trial has to be seen
not only from the point of view of the
victim, but also from the point of view of
the accused and the society - not possible
to lay down precise situations when such
power can be exercised - scope of power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be
considered
from
case
to
case
-
victim/applicant cannot have the witness
recalled for re-examination as a matter of
right and extraordinary provision cannot
be used as an afterthought to fill the
gaps.(Para - 22,23)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
311
-
discretionary power vested under Section
311 Cr.P.C. - to be exercised judiciously
for strong and valid reasons and with
caution and circumspection to meet the
ends of justice - should ensure that
judgment should not be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive and speculative
presentation of facts. (Para -16,20)

Applicant/victim filed an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - to summon her for giving
further
evidence
with
respect
to
certain
photographs and documents - which were
necessary for proper adjudication of case -
application rejected by court below - ground -
statement of applicant/victim already recorded -
all
evidences

available
on
record
-
victim/applicant already examined and crossexamined - filed only for lingering on the trial of
the case.(Para -2,3, 9,21)