# Mata Bheekh Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-22
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 4035 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mata-bheekh-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46226
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307,504,506quashing of criminal proceedings-trial
concluded-appeal
against
convictionappeal allowed-parties compromise on
their
own
without
any
coercion
or
compulsion and they had buried their
differences-offences are purely personal,
Thus quashing would not over-ride public
interest-no
untoward
incident
has
occurred after the alleged assault took
place long time ago in the heat of
moment.(Para 1 to 10)

B. The extraordinary power bestowed
upon the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can
be invoked beyond metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, such
powers being of wide amplitude, ought to
be exercised carefully and in the context
of quashing criminal proceedings bearing
in mind (i) Nature and effect of the
offence
on
the
conscience
of
the
society(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any
(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and other relevant considerations.
(Para 5)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to appeal is, accordingly rejected and the
appeal is also dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A156
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 4035 of 2021

Mata Bheekh Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Virendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307,504,506quashing of criminal proceedings-trial
concluded-appeal
against
convictionappeal allowed-parties compromise on
their
own
without
any
coercion
or
compulsion and they had buried their
differences-offences are purely personal,
Thus quashing would not over-ride public
interest-no
untoward
incident
has
occurred after the alleged assault took
place long time ago in the heat of
moment.(Para 1 to 10)

B. The extraordinary power bestowed
upon the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can
be invoked beyond metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, such
powers being of wide amplitude, ought to
be exercised carefully and in the context
of quashing criminal proceedings bearing
in mind (i) Nature and effect of the
offence
on
the
conscience
of
the
society(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any
(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and other relevant considerations.
(Para 5)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Gopal & anr .Vs St. of M.P. CRLA No.
1489 of 2012

2. Krishnapa & ors. Vs St. of Karn. CRLA No.
1488 of 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs.
Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

(1) This petition has been filed with
the following main prayer:-

"(1) For the facts, reasons and
circumstances
as
stated
in
the
accompanying
affidavit,
it
is
most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash the
proceedings of criminal case at Trial
No.292/2009 arising out of Case Crime
No.335A/2007, under Sections 307/504/506
IPC, Police Station Sareni, District Rae
Bareli,
pending
before
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Rae
Bareli,
on
the
basis
of
settlement/compromise executed in between
the parties, as contained in Annexure No.7
in the interest of justice."

(2) It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R. on
23.08.2007. The petitioners had also lodged
an F.I.R.
registered
as
Case
Crime
No.335/2007. A compromise has occurred
between the parties. The true copy of the
compromise
has
been
filed
through
supplementary affidavit which has been
taken on record today.
10 All. Mata Bheekh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
157

(3) Shri Dhirendra Singh, Enrollment
No.9643/03,
Advocate
Roll
No.B/
D0240/2012, has filed his Power on behalf
of the opposite party no.2. He says that
indeed a compromise has taken place
between the parties.

(4) Ms. Sikha Sinha, learned AGA has
pointed out that the trial has been going on
since 2009 and is nearing completion. She
has also pointed out the injury report
annexed
as
annexure-02
which
has
mentioned at least six incised wounds on
the face of the victim, and says that in such
cases under Section 307 of the IPC, the
inherent powers of quashing prosecution
under Section 482 should not ordinarily be
exercised.

(5) Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh has
brought to the notice of this Court a
judgement rendered by the Division Bench
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
on
29.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of
2012 (Ram Gopal & Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh) and Criminal Appeal
No. 1488 of 2012 (Krishnapa & Others vs.
State of Karnataka) where the Division
Bench has observed, after considering the
larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gyan Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and subsequent
decision that the plenary jurisdiction of the
superior judiciary including the High
Courts to impart complete justice, under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inhibited by any
statutory limits as imposed under Section
320 of the Cr.P.C. The extraordinary power
bestowed upon the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked beyond
the metes and bounds of Section 320
Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, such powers being of
wide amplitude, ought to be exercised
carefully and in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings bearing in mind:-(i)
Nature and effect of the offence on the
conscience of the society; (ii) Seriousness
of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature
of compromise between the accused and
the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of
the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.

(6) The Supreme Court had allowed
the Appeals by observing that the offences
involved in the appeal could be categorized
as purely personal and having no over tones
of offence against the State and the nature
of injuries were such as not to appear to
exhibit
any
mental
depravity
for
commission of an offence of such a serious
nature that its quashing would over-ride
public interest. The Court exercised its
power under Article 142 saying that it is
immaterial that the trial against the
appellant has been concluded and there is a
appeal against conviction. The appeal
should be dismissed because the parties on
their own settlement without any coercion
or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily
had buried their differences and wished to
give a quietus to their dispute. The Court
also
looked
into
the
fact
that
the
occurrences in both the cases took place
long time ago and there was nothing on
record
that
the
appellants
and
the
complainants being residents of the same
villages had thereafter breached the peace.
Therefore, the criminal justice system
would remain unaffected on acceptance of
amicable settlement between the parties
and resultant acquittal of the appellants.

(7) No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has made such observations under
Article 142 of the Constitution and has
quashed
a
prosecution
against
the
appellants not in the exercise of it's power
of quashing under Section 482 of the
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. but under Article 142 which is
designed to do complete justice between the
parties. However, the observations made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court seem appropriate
in this case also. It has been submitted by the
counsel for the petitioners and also by the
opposite party no.2 that no untoward incident
has occurred after the alleged assault which
took place long time ago and in the heat of
the moment under grave provocation.

(8) Learned trial court be sent papers
relating to this Application U/s 482 forthwith
by the Registry. The compromise which has
been
filed
in
the
original
through
supplementary affidavit by the counsel for the
petitioners shall be returned to him.

(9) Accordingly, the Application U/s
482 stands disposed of.

(10) Learned trial court shall verify the
compromise occurring between the parties
and pass appropriate orders thereon. It shall
be open for the petitioners to approach this
Court again by filing the appropriate petition
for quashing of the proceedings thereafter.
Till appropriate orders are passed by the
concerned
trial
court
verifying
the
compromise occurring between the parties,
no coercive steps be taken against the
petitioners.
----------

(2021)10ILR A158
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 4045 of 2021

Cosntable 52 Shiwakant Dubey
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Satish Singh, Anjeet Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal
Law
-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 504 - Police
Act-Section 29-quashing of chargesheetwho was working as constable was
entrusted to take down the statement of
his colleague who had reported for duty
late
after
unauthorized
absenceapplicant failed to record the same-the
superior
got
annoyed
due
to
nonexercise of his official duty-applicant
misbehaved
and
abused
his
Officer
Incharge-no sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C.
was required-However, offence is minor
in nature and only one witness has been
examined, all the officers are retired
now-applicant's retiral benefits have
been
withheld
pending
criminal
proceedings-In such a situation trial
may be expedite and trial court is
directed
to
pass
appropriate
orders.(Para 1 to 12)

B. Sanction of the government, to
prosecute a police officer for any act
related to the discharge of an official
duty, it is imperative to protect the
police officer from facing harassive,
retaliatory,
revengeful
and
frivolous
proceedings. To decide whether sanction
is necessary, the test is whether the act
is totally unconnected with official duty
or
whether
there
is
a
reasonable
connection with the official duty. In the
case of an act of a policeman or any
other public servant unconnected with
the
official
duty
there
can
be
no
question of sanction.(Para 6)

The petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: