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

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1113
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-30
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 43676 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahipal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50935
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 156(3), 173(2) & 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307,
323, 324 & 326- Application u/s 482 - for
quashing criminal proceedings based on a
compromise - FIR - offence of acid attack -
opposite party no. 2, in his counter affidavit
confirming that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute and he has no objection to
the FIR being quashed, citing diminished
chances of conviction - the St. Counsel opposed
the prayer - court finds that, undisputedly,
during the acid attack victims were suffered
serious deep burn injuries on vital parts of their
bodies and the offence is grave and affects
society at large - under section 482 Cr.P.C.
courts
have
inherent
powers
to
quash
proceedings in non-compoundable offences,
however, such discretion must be exercised
cautiously, especially in heinous crimes that
impact society - referring to Supreme Court
judgments in Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. and St.
of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that -
the compromise cannot override the gravity of
the offence - consequently, without meaning
any expression of opinion on the merits of the
case, application stands dismissed.
(Para - 14, 15, 16)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of referred Cases: -

## Text

3 All. Mahipal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1113
I.P.C., is made out against the applicant.
The victim/opposite party no.2 has already
married to someone else and has moved
ahead in life and the pendency of the
instant case will cause further harassment
to her and she has already entered into a
compromise with the applicant and had
given statement on oath before the learned
Trial Court that she don't want to prosecute
this case against the applicant which has
also been reiterated by the opposite party
no.2 before this Court. Therefore, in the
considered view of this Court, it will be
duty of this Court to exercise the powers
u/S 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the instant
proceedings to secure the ends of justice
not only to the applicant but also to save
the opposite party no.2 from further
harassment.

26. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, since there was no prima facie
case u/S 376 or 493 against the applicant
herein and further the parties have entered
into a compromise as the opposite party
no.2 has already moved ahead in life and as
settled in a new matrimonial life with
someone else, the pendency of the instant
case will be a further harassment to her and
in view of the aforesaid discussions, there
are very bleak and remote chances of
conviction to the applicant on the given
facts of the case, therefore, the Charge
Sheet No. 114/17 dated 20.06.2017 and
entire proceedings in Case No. 3056/IX of
2017 (State vs. Mohit Soni), arising out of
Case Crime No. 201 of 2017 u/S 493, 376,
504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Rajapur, District-
Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, are
hereby quashed.

27. The instant application is disposed
of accordingly.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1113
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 43676 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Dewendra Singh, Sri Mehdi Abbas

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 156(3), 173(2) & 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307,
323, 324 & 326- Application u/s 482 - for
quashing criminal proceedings based on a
compromise - FIR - offence of acid attack -
opposite party no. 2, in his counter affidavit
confirming that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute and he has no objection to
the FIR being quashed, citing diminished
chances of conviction - the St. Counsel opposed
the prayer - court finds that, undisputedly,
during the acid attack victims were suffered
serious deep burn injuries on vital parts of their
bodies and the offence is grave and affects
society at large - under section 482 Cr.P.C.
courts
have
inherent
powers
to
quash
proceedings in non-compoundable offences,
however, such discretion must be exercised
cautiously, especially in heinous crimes that
impact society - referring to Supreme Court
judgments in Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. and St.
of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that -
the compromise cannot override the gravity of
the offence - consequently, without meaning
any expression of opinion on the merits of the
case, application stands dismissed.
(Para - 14, 15, 16)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of referred Cases: -

1. Mohabbat and 2 others Vs St. of U.P. & anr.-
(Application U/S 482 No. 702 of 2019),

2. Hayyat & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(Application
U/S 482 No. - 796 of 2019),

3. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. reported in (2012)
10 SCC 303,

4. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors.- 2019
AIR (Supreme Court) 1296,

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicants Mahipal and his three
co-accused persons have jointly filed this
petition under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of the
criminal proceedings arising out of the
Case Crime No. 456 of 2010, under Section
307 IPC registered at Police Station Nai
Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar which is
subject matter of the Sessions Trial No. 170
of 2011, titled State vs. Mahipal and others,
pending before the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, on the
basis of the compromise dated 12.10.2023
(Annexure No. 4).

2. The above noted case was
registered on the basis of the statement of
Rishipal son of Kadam Singh, wherein he
alleged that Mahipal, resident of his village
keeps on breaching the ridge (Dol) of
agricultural land and despite requesting him
to not to do so, he tends to enter into a
quarrel. My son Praveen Kumar is running
a grocery shop and sons of Mahipal are
also running a shop for selling hydro and
acid. Today at around 3:00 PM, my son
was on the shop and my nephews Sachin
and Pradeep Kumar were also there when
Mahipal alongwith his sons Neetu, Lalit,
and father namely Sukhpal came to our
shop, who alongwith Sukhpal exhorted that
everyday you raise complaint regarding
breach of ridge (Dol), so today we will
eliminate you. Upon this all the four
assailants who were carrying acid in a
container, with an intention to kill my son
Praveen and nephews Sachin, Pradeep
threw acid upon them, and it resulted in
serious injuries to all of them. This incident
was witnessed by Baburam son of Paldu
resident of Sikhreda and Ravindra son of
Madan resident of Sarmujheda, Police
Station Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar. At the
time of incident, I was purchasing petrol
from a petrol pump for my truck and on
receiving the information, I reached at the
spot and the witnesses told that the injured
have been taken to the hospital. On these
broad allegations, the above FIR was
registered for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Section 307 IPC.

3. After registration of the case, the
police
carried
out
investigation
and
submitted the final report bearing Charge
Sheet no. 118 of 2010 dated 8.5.2010 under
Section
173(2)
Cr.P.C
against
the
applicants-accused for alleged commission
of offence punishable under Section 307
IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that pursuant to the final report, the
case was committed before the court of
sessions for trial and during the pendency
of the same, with the intervention of the
respectable persons of the village, the
parties have agreed to resolve the dispute
and
the
compromise
arrived
at
on
12.10.2023
is
appended
with
this
application as Annexure No. 4. Learned
Counsel has invited the attention of the
Court to the compromise and further
3 All. Mahipal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1115
submitted that on the basis of this
settlement, the cross case registered at the
instance of applicants bearing Case Crime
No. 456A of 2010, i.e. Sessions Trial No.
1109 of 2012, under Sections 323, 324, 326
is also settled and the parties do not want to
contest the case against each other.

5. Learned counsel has referred to the
decision of this Court in Mohabbat and 2
others vs. State of U.P. and another
(Application U/S 482 No. 702 of 2019) and
the decision in Hayyat and another vs.
State of U.P. and another (Application
U/S 482 No. - 796 of 2019 and submitted
that following the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
this Court has quashed the criminal
proceedings
relating
to
the
alleged
commission of offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC. He prays that the petition
be allowed and the criminal proceedings
pending against the applicants be quashed
on the basis of the compromise.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 2 namely Rishipal has
filed the counter affidavit which is taken on
record.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2 has stated that indeed the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and he has no
objection in case, the prayer made by the
applicants for quashing of the FIR is
accepted. According to the learned counsel
for respondent no. 2, in view of the
compromise of the parties, the chances of
conviction have become weak, therefore,
no useful purpose would be served by
continuing with the criminal proceedings.

8. The prayer is opposed by the
learned State Counsel who has argued that
the offences are serious and in such cases,
the compromise between the parties is
meaningless as the nature of the offence is
not against an individual, but is against the
society. He prays that the petition be
dismissed.

9. During the course of hearing, it is
not disputed by the learned counsel for the
applicants and the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 that in the alleged
occurrence, victim Sachin had suffered
serious deep burn injuries on vital parts of
his body, i.e. face, front of chest upper part,
front of neck, both upper arms, front of
thigh, right denum of foot etc. and similarly
the other two injured namely Praveen and
Pradeep also suffered deep burn injuries on
the vital parts of their bodies.

10. Learned counsel for the parties
have been heard and with their assistance,
the case file has been perused.

11. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and considering their
submissions, this Court finds that the
solitary ground of compromise set up in
this petition for quashing of the criminal
proceedings is not worth acceptance
considering the manner of the commission
of offences, as well as the nature and
seriousness of the injuries suffered by the
victims. No doubt, by interpretation, the
High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court have injected some elasticity in
quashing criminal proceedings, relating to
the non-compoundable offences, through
exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 Code of Criminal Procedure, but such
a relaxation cannot be construed as an
absolute one and would depend upon
various factors including the magnitude of
the offences, manner of the commission of
offences, weapons used in the crime etc.
and effect on the society.
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. By now it is well settled that the
penal laws are aimed to deter the citizens
from resorting to the commission of crime,
and if, the offences of heinous nature are
allowed to be compromised, it would
adversely impact the object of penal laws.
If, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
permitted to be exercised in respect of the
heinous crimes, then it would certainly
encourage the criminals to take law in their
own hands. At this stage, this Court deems
it appropriate to refer the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303, wherein the Apex Court while
examining the exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of
compromise in relation to the serious
offences made the following observations:-

"61. The position that emerges
from
the
above
discussion
can
be
summarised thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i)
to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis
for
quashing
criminal
proceedings
involving such offences."

13. Apart from the above decision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and
others reported in 2019 AIR (Supreme
Court) 1296 further laid down the
principles for quashing of the criminal
proceedings on the strength of compromise,
in
non-compoundable
offences
by
exercising inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted below:-

"13. 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:

i) 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;

ii) such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
3 All. Mahipal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1117
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society;

iii) 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;

iv) 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;

v) 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 impart
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.

14. Insofar as the present case is
concerned, the High Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and
even when the investigation was under
progress. Somehow, the accused managed
to enter into a compromise with the
complainant and sought quashing of the
FIR on the basis of a settlement. The
allegations are serious in nature. He used
the fire arm also in commission of the
offence. Therefore, the gravity of the
offence and the conduct of the accused is
not at all considered by the High Court and
solely on the basis of a settlement between
the accused and the complainant, the High
Court has mechanically quashed the FIR,
in exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code, which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. The High Court has also failed
to note the antecedents of the accused."

14. Thus, in view of the above
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
citations relied upon by the learned counsel
for the applicants in Mohabbat's case
(supra) and Hayyat,s case (supra) would
not be applicable as in the said cases, the
above noticed principles laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan
and others, 2019(5) SCC 688 had not been
noticed.

15. Now while reverting to the facts
of the case in hand, this Court finds that as
per prosecution, the applicants were
carrying acid with them and caused serious
burn injuries to Sachin, Pradeep and
Praveen and the manner of crime as
narrated by the complainant Rishipal in the
FIR is horrendous as they came to the shop
of victims and threw acid on them. Further,
this is a case where the applicant accused
have given their own version relating to the
occurrence as a cross case bearing Case
Crime No. 456A of 2010 under Section
323, 324 326 IPC, Police Station Nai
Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar lodged at
their instance for having suffered injuries at
the hands of complainant etc., is also
pending adjudication.

16. Consequently, considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the
sole ground of compromise raised by the
applicants in this petition for quashing of
the criminal proceedings is rejected.

17. Resultantly, without meaning any
expression of opinion on the merits of the
case, the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1118
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 45380 of 2023

Shishir Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Senger

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ajay Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 200, 202, 202(1)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 328 & 376-D - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Act, 2012 - Sections 5-G & 6: - Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the
summoning order as well as the entire criminal
proceedings - complaint case - under Sections
376D IPC and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act -
victim alleges repeated sexual assault by the
applicant from 2015 to 2020 and again in 2023,
supported by her St.ment u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and
corroborated by two witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. -
Trial court being found prima facie evidence and
issued a summoning order - applicant
contended that the complaint is fabricated due
to business rivalry and highlights inconsistencies
such as the complainant's refusal to undergo
timely
medical
examination,
lack
of
corroborative medical evidence, vague witness
St.ments,
absence
of specific
dates
and
locations, and failure to raise alarm or report the
alleged incidents over several years - he also
argues procedural lapses in the summoning
order and trial court did not examine the matter
u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. knowing that the applicant
was residing beyond the jurisdiction of court -
Court finds that, trial court while initially
summoning the applicant failed to consider key
procedural and evidentiary lapses, including the
absence of any reference to the medical report
in the complaint, lack of injuries noted in the
report and the complainant's refusal to undergo
a court-directed medical examination without