# Mohd. Haroon & Ors v. State of U.P. and Anr Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-25
- **Bench:** Virendra Vikram Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-haroon-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-anr-opp-parties-42823
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. Section-482-application to quash
criminal
proceedings-on
basis
of
compromise-offence under section 323, 324,
326, 504, 506 IPC-held-offence under
Section 326 IPC found proved-offence being
serious in nature having impact on society
can not be quashed merely based upon
compromise-claims rejected.

Held: Para-11
Offence under section 326 IPC was found
proved against them, which is a serious
offence punishable upto life imprisonment.
Thus, the offence in question is definitely a
serious nature of offence having its impact
over the society. Hence, the same cannot
be permitted to be quashed simply
because the parties have entered into
compromise.

Case Law discussed:
(2003) 4 SCC 675; (2008) 9 SCC 677;
2012(10) SCC; (2008)16 SCC 1.

## Text

1 All] Mohd. Haroon & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
363
Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary
Education Selection Board Act, 1982 within
three months from the date of service of
certified copy of the order.

29. No order as to cost.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 5830 of 2014,
(u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Mohd. Haroon & Ors. ..... Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr...... Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ved Mani Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C. Section-482-application to quash
criminal
proceedings-on
basis
of
compromise-offence under section 323, 324,
326, 504, 506 IPC-held-offence under
Section 326 IPC found proved-offence being
serious in nature having impact on society
can not be quashed merely based upon
compromise-claims rejected.

Held: Para-11
Offence under section 326 IPC was found
proved against them, which is a serious
offence punishable upto life imprisonment.
Thus, the offence in question is definitely a
serious nature of offence having its impact
over the society. Hence, the same cannot
be permitted to be quashed simply
because the parties have entered into
compromise.

Case Law discussed:
(2003) 4 SCC 675; (2008) 9 SCC 677;
2012(10) SCC; (2008)16 SCC 1.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Vikram
Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. The applicants have approached this
Court by way of moving an application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. and have prayed
for quashing the proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 1075 of 2011 (State vs Mohd
Haroon and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 441 of 2009, under sections 324,
323, 326, 504 and 506 IPC, PS Nawabganj,
district Bareilly pending before the Judicial
Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly.

3. The only ground on which the
quashing of the criminal proceedings has
been prayed is that the applicants have
entered into compromise with Umakant,
injured in the case. A joint affidavit
showing the compromise between the
parties has been filed as annexure-4 to the
present application.

4. It has been argued that since the
parties have entered into compromise, the
proceedings of the case be quashed in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs State of
Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Nikhil
Merchant
vs
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC
677.

5. The offence in question involves a
serious offence like 326 IPC, which is
punishable upto life imprisonment. The
question at this juncture arises as to
whether the Court is obliged or duty
bound to quash the proceedings of a
criminal case, in which the accused and
the affected persons have entered into
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compromise. In order to analyse the
analogy of the decision of Hon'ble the
Apex Court, as it has been relied upon
needs be gone into.

6. In the case of B.S. Joshi vs State of
Haryana referred to above, the dispute was
between the husband and wife and the
criminal proceedings were pending in
respect of the matrimonial litigations, which
was permitted to be quashed because of the
compromise between the parties.

7. In the case of Nikhil Merchant vs
Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another,
the
dispute
between
the
Company and the Bank were set at rest on
the basis of the compromise arrived at by
them whereunder the dues of the Bank
have been cleared and the Bank does not
bear any further claim agianst the
Company.
Under
such
a
peculiar
circumstances, the proceedings were
quashed on the basis of the compromise
between the parties.

8. The same matter again came
before Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case
of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and
another 2012 (10) SCC page 303, The
case was referred to a larger Bench while
two judges of Hon'ble the Apex Court
raise suspicion about the legality of the
law propounded in the case ofB.S. Joshi
vs State of Haryana; Nikhil Merchant vs
Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another. The Hon'ble the Apex court in
the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab
though held that it cannot be said that the
case of B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana
,Nikhil Merchant vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another and Manoj
Sharma vs State and others (2008) 16 SCC
1 were not correctly decided, however, it
was held that the heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offence like
murder, rape dacoity, etc or under special
statues like Prohibition of Corruption Act or
offence committed by Public Servant while
working in their capacity as Public Servant,
cannot be quashed even though, the victim
or victim's family and offender have settled
the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on a
society. It was also held that in this
judgment
that
before
exercise
of
inherentpowers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
High Court must have due regard to nature
and gravity of the crime and its societal
impact. Thus, from the judgment of Gian
Singh vs State of Punjab (Supra) it is
evident that even though the High Court in
exercise of powers under section 482
Cr.P.C. is empowered to quash the
proceedings of a criminal case, irrespective
of the fact whether the offence is not
mentioned in section 320 Part I and Part II
Cr.P.C., but the court has not been given
unfettered powers to quash the proceedings
in every case where the parties to the
offence entered into compromise. The
charge sheet for certain offences especially
mentioned in the judgment and for the
remaining offences, it has been held that
High Court must consider the nature and
gravity of the crime and its impact over the
society.

9. In view of the above proposition
of Law, it lies incumbent in this Court
toconsider the facts of the case as to
whether in view of the compromise
between the parties, the proceedings of
the present case can be quashed.

10. It is the interest of the society
and the society looks forward that any
person, who has committed any offence
should be put to trial and further be
convicted, if sufficient evidence is available
1 All] Sursari Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
365
against him. It is also necessary to deter the
persons of shattered mentality, to have some
fear for the law that they will have to face
the consequences, if they involved in these
criminal activities.

11. If the facts of the present case be
looked into, it tells that all the applicants
mercilessly
assaulted
Umakant
on
9.6.2009 to the extent that he received
grievous injuries. However, the injury
report has not been filed by the applicants
or they were shy of placing it before the
court, but the fact remains that apart from
the other offences, offence under section
326 IPC was found proved against them,
which is a serious offence punishable upto
life imprisonment. Thus, the offence in
question is definitely a serious nature of
offence having its impact over the society.
Hence, the same cannot be permitted to be
quashed simply because the parties have
entered into compromise.

12.

Accordingly,
the
present
application with the prayer to quash the
proceedings is hereby rejected.

13. The trial court is directed to
proceed with the trial expeditiously.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE M.C. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5919 of 2014

Sursari Prasad..... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri Abhishek
Mishra

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965Constitution of India Art.-226-Alternative
remedy-order passed under section 38
appealable under section 98(i)(d)-writ
petition-challenging order passed by Joint
Registrar on direction of Court-can not be
entertained directly-petition dismissed on
ground of alternative remedy.

Held: Para-7
The said provision makes it amply clear
that an order such as that passed under
Section 38 in the present case is
appealable
and,
therefore,
the
preliminary
objection
raised
by
Sri
Mishra is upheld.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
order passed by the Joint Registrar dated
24.12.2013, Annexure-1 to the writ
petition on the ground that the order is
erroneous on various grounds and facts as
well as in law.

2. Sri K.N. Mishra for the
respondent - bank has raised a preliminary
objection that the impugned order is
appealable in terms of Section 98 (1) (d)
of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965, and, therefore, the petition should
not be entertained.

3. We have perused the records and
we find that the order of the Registrar is
an outcome of a Division Bench judgment
dated 11.1.2012 between the same parties
in Writ Petition No.48177 of 2011,
reported in (2012) 1 UPLBEC 798. The
authority of the Registrar to hear the
matter and dispose of the issue of
disqualification was found to be within