# Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 564
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.4690 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-mohd-ibrahim-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48136
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law-FIR lodged-property
dispute-section
307
IPC-Medical
examination-simple
injuries-chances
of
conviction u/s 307 IPC is remote and
bleak-mere incorporation of section 307
IPC would not be a bar to the compromise
entered to end the disputes-impugned
order and entire proceeding quashed..

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resume, no useful purpose will be served
and the prosecution of the applicants would
only result in their persecution. Allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the Court, and the
ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. To do real and
substantial justice and to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court, the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be
allowed.

19. Therefore, the application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is
allowed.
The
Complaint Case No.1015 of 2006, Raju Vs.
Basant Lal and others, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ist, Aligarh, under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the
summoning order dated 16-09-2006 are liable
to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A564
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.4690 of 2021

Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Farooq Ayoob

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Farakshan Khatoon, Pooja Tiwari

(A) Criminal Law-FIR lodged-property
dispute-section
307
IPC-Medical
examination-simple
injuries-chances
of
conviction u/s 307 IPC is remote and
bleak-mere incorporation of section 307
IPC would not be a bar to the compromise
entered to end the disputes-impugned
order and entire proceeding quashed..

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & anr.;
(2014) 6 SCC 466

2. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors.; (2019) 5
SCC 688
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Farooq Ayoob, learned
counsel for the applicants as well as Mr.
Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned AGA for
the opposite party no. 1 - State and Ms.
Farakshan Khatoon, learned counsel for
opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

2. By means of the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants
have sought quashing of the summoning
order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki in
Case No. 2514 of 2016 arising out of
charge-sheet
No.
A-133/16
dated
31.05.2016 filed in case Crime No. 0176 of
2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 427, 307 IPC, Police Station
Safdarganj, District Barabanki.

3. On 31.05.2016 the opposite party
no. 2 had filed an FIR alleging that there
arose a property dispute between the parties
and the revenue authorities had demarcated
the land about 22 days ago. On 31.05.2016
the applicants started tiling the informant's
farms and upon protest they assaulted and
threatened the opposite parties no. 2 and 3.
On 28.07.2021 the parties have entered into
a compromise, a copy of whereof has been
filed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit
2 All. Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565
filed in support of the application in which
it is stated that Mohd. Amin son of Shakur
who was also named in the FIR has died on
02.07.2020. With the intervention of
respected persons and relatives the parties
have entered into a compromise and there
is no dispute remaining between them and
the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 do not want
any action against the applicants.

4. By means of an order dated
09.12.2021 this Court had directed that a
letter be sent to the Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
19,
Barabanki to verify the compromise dated
28.07.2021
in
accordance
with
the
procedure prescribed in law and send the
report to this Court.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order,
the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki has
submitted a report that the applicants and the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have appeared
before him along with their Advocates and
they accepted the compromise.

6. Before proceeding to decide the
instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
in terms of the compromise, it has to be
examined as to whether the charge-sheet and
the proceedings of a case can be quashed on
the basis of a compromise entered into
between the parties.

7. In Narinder Singh and Others Vs.
State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC
466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to sum up and lay down the
principles by which the High Court would be
guided in giving adequate treatment to the
settlement between parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 Cr.PC. while
accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement in the following words: -

" 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 under
Section 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 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 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.
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29.4 On the other, 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 is 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 later
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 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,
2 All. Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
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."

8. The aforesaid decision in Narinder
Singh and others (supra) has been
followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi
Narayan & Others; (2019) 5 SCC 688 and
in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that: -

"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
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 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/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;"

9.

Copies
of
medico
legal
examination report of the opposite parties
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no. 2 and 3 have been filed along with the
affidavit filed in support of the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which indicate
that both of them have suffered contusions
and abrasions which in the opinion of the
Doctor are simple in nature and none of the
persons has suffered any grievous injury
which
may
support
the
charge
of
committing an offence under Section 307
IPC.

10. Examining the facts of the present
case in light of the aforesaid law laid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it transpires that
the FIR was lodged stating that there was a
property dispute between the parties.
Although the FIR and the charge-sheet
make a mention of Section 307 IPC, the
medical examination report of the opposite
parties no. 2 and 3 mentions simple injuries
of contusions and abrasions only and there
is no report of any serious injury having
been suffered by the opposite parties no. 2
and 3. Further, none of the injuries is
reported to have been inflicted on any vital
part of the body of any of the injured
persons. The injuries are reported to have
been caused by hard and blunt object.

11. Keeping in view of the aforesaid
facts, the chance of conviction of the
applicants under Section 307 IPC is remote
and bleak.

12. After lodging of the FIR and
submission of charge-sheet the parties have
entered into a compromise which has been
verified by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki and
accepting the submissions of Mr. Farooq
Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicants,
Ms. Farakshan Khatoon, learned counsel
for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3, both of
whom have submitted that the charge-sheet
and summoning order and the entire
criminal proceedings in this regard be
quashed.

13. The learned AGA has no
objection against the application being
allowed on the basis of the compromise.

14. Keeping in view of the entire
facts, I am of the view that mere
incorporation of Section 307 IPC in the FIR
and the charge-sheet, would not be a bar to
the compromise entered into between the
parties to put an end to the disputes
between them and the present case would
fall within the exception carved out by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 29.6 in
Narinder Singh and others (supra) and
para 15.4 of the judgment in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi
Narayan & others (supra).

15. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the continuance
of the proceedings of the case even after
the parties have entered into a compromise
would only result in persecution of the
applicants, which would give rise to a
failure of justice.

16. In view of aforesaid discussions,
the instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed on the basis of the
compromise dated 28.07.2021.

17. The summoning order dated
27.08.2016
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 19, Barabanki in Case No. 2514 of
2016 arising out of charge-sheet No. A133/16 dated 31.05.2016 filed in case
Crime No. 0176 of 2016 under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC,
Police
Station
Safdarganj,
District
Barabanki including the entire proceedings
initiated thereafter are hereby quashed
2 All. Rama Sharan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
569
----------
(2022)02ILR A569
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4741 of 2016

Rama Sharan Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sunil Kumar, Baljeet Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Anoop Kumar Upadhyay

(A) Criminal Law-Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C.
-against
Revisional
ordermaintainable-allegation
u/s
406
IPC
alleged against Applicant no.2 and 3 but
all accused summoned -summoning order
must show application of mind-impugned
order
lacks
application
of
mindsummoning order quashed for Applicant
no. 1,4 to 6.

Application partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Jitendra Kumar Jain Vs St. of Delhi & ors.
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 770

2. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & ors. Vs St.
of Mah. & anr. , reported in 2009 2 SCC 370

3. Shakuntala Devi & ors. Vs Chamru Mahto &
anr., reported in 2009 3 SCC 310

4. Pepsi Foods Ltd & anr. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors., reported in 1998 5 SCC
749
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash
the impugned summoning order dated
29.07.2015
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate
First,
Gonda
in
Criminal
Complaint No. 16 of 2015 (Jitendra Singh
Vs. Ramasharan Pandey & others), Police
Station Paraspur, District Gonda as well as
against the order dated 04.7.2016 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (E.C. Act) Gonda in Criminal
Revision No. 331 of 2015, (Ramasharan
Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another)
along
with
the
criminal
proceedings of Criminal complaint no. 16
of 2015 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First, Gonda.

3. Shri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the respondent and
learned AGA have raised a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the
present application under Section 482
against the revisional order which is also
under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that the summoning order
was passed without application of mind. It
is further submitted that by the impugned
summoning order all the applicants were
summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506
and 406 of IPC whereas the offence under
Section 406 has been alleged against Dev
Sharna Pandey and L There is no allegation
or accusation under Section 406 of IPC
against the applicant nos. 1,4,5 and 6 and
the same could be seen from the statement
of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
even then the summons have been issued