# Mujeem v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 573
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-17
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 17220 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mujeem-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50329
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section - 307: - Application U/s 482 -
for quashing the entire proceedings of Session
Trial U/s 307 IPC - on the ground that, parties
have compromised the matter and also moved a
compromise application before the trial court -
there are no chances of conviction since the
complainant-opposite party has compromised
and would not testify in support of the
prosecution, in case trial is held - court finds
that, evidence shows that the weapon used was
a fire-arm and it brooks little doubt that a
person who opens fire at another does so with
the intention to kill, - certainly does not do so
with the intention to lover or play a jest - held,
the compromised would be an abdication of the
St.'s function to prosecute offences against the
society, cannot be permitted - and the principle
laid down in 'Narinder Singh' case does not
approve of such a composition - hence,
Application is dismissed.(Para - 6, 7)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & anr., (2014) 6
SCC 466,

## Text

6 All. Mujeem Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
573
under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are,
even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge
sheet, if it is found that the accused is a
member of a 'Gang' and has indulged in
any of the anti-social activities mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as,
by violence, or threat or show of violence, or
intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with
the object of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage for himself or any
other person and he/she can be termed as
'Gangster' within the definition of Section 2(c)
of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the
offences under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, so
far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned,
there can be prosecution against a person even
in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for
any of the anti-social activities mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an antisocial activity is by violence, or threat or show
of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or
otherwise with the object of disturbing public
order or of gaining any undue temporal,
pecuniary, material or other advantage for
himself or any other person.

10. In view of the law on the subject and
facts of the matter, it is clear that an accused can
be proceeded against under the Gangsters Act
even on the basis of a solitary case. The merits of
the case on the basis of which the case under the
Gangsters Act has been lodged cannot be seen.
The order of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Mohd. Ruksar which is being relied upon by
learned counsel for the applicant for praying of an
interim order on the said ground does not consider
the judgements passed by the Division Bench of
this Court and also the judgement of the Apex
Court. More so, it is an interim order which is not
binding on this Court.

11. The present petition is devoid of
any merits, the same is accordingly,
dismissed.

12. Office is directed to place a copy
of this order in Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 43408 of 2022 (Mohd. Ruksar
vs. State of U.P. and another) within three
weeks from today.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 573
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 17220 of 2023

Mujeem ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Prabhakar Chandel

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Devendra Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section - 307: - Application U/s 482 -
for quashing the entire proceedings of Session
Trial U/s 307 IPC - on the ground that, parties
have compromised the matter and also moved a
compromise application before the trial court -
there are no chances of conviction since the
complainant-opposite party has compromised
and would not testify in support of the
prosecution, in case trial is held - court finds
that, evidence shows that the weapon used was
a fire-arm and it brooks little doubt that a
person who opens fire at another does so with
the intention to kill, - certainly does not do so
with the intention to lover or play a jest - held,
the compromised would be an abdication of the
St.'s function to prosecute offences against the
society, cannot be permitted - and the principle
laid down in 'Narinder Singh' case does not
approve of such a composition - hence,
Application is dismissed.(Para - 6, 7)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & anr., (2014) 6
SCC 466,

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This application has been filed
seeking to quash the entire proceedings of
Session Trial No. 152 of 2012, State vs.
Mujeem (arising out of Case Crime No.
950 of 2010) under Section 307 IPC, P.S.
Raipura, District Chitrakoot, pending in the
Court of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 1, Chitrakoot.

2. The submission of learned counsel
for the applicant is that the parties have
compromised the matter and moved a
compromise application before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Chitrakoot in Session Trial No. 152 of
2012, State vs. Mujeem on 04.04.2023, a
certified copy whereof is annexed as
Annexure no. 5 to this application. It is
argued that there are no chances of
conviction since the complainant-opposite
party has compromised and would not
testify in support of the prosecution, in case
trial is held.

3. A perusal of the prosecution case
shows that according to the first informant,
who is the complainant-opposite party no. 2
here, the complainant Sahid Ali son of Raja
Husain, a resident of Village Dera, Mauja
Bandhi of P.S. Raipura, District Chitrakoot
along with his uncle Shamshad on
29.12.2010
was
riding
a
motorcycle
proceeding home from village Bandhi.
When the two reached the Kapoori turning,
the applicant, Mujeem was waiting by the
side of the canal. It is said that he bore a
grudge against the applicant. Upon seeing
the complainant, the applicant chased the
complaiant at about 7:30 in the evening,
and, shortly thereafter, opened fire. The
complainant received a gun shot injury to
his
neck.
Despite
the
injury,
the
complainant and his uncle gave a chase to
the applicant, but he made good his escape.
The injuries were subjected to a medicolegal
examination
at
the
Combined
Hospital Chitrakoot, where the following
injury was noted:

"1. Lacerated wound 2cm x 1 cm back
of the neck blackening 12cm x 12 cm
around it. Swelling goes to lateral side of
neck up to neck. Depth could not be
ascertained. Kept under observation. Fresh
blood present. Adv. X-ray Neck

Opinion- Above mention injury caused
by fire-arm and fresh."

4. Later on an X-ray examination of the
injury was done and the Department of
Radiology,
M.L.N.
Medical
College,
S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad submitted a
medico legal report dated 11.02.2011,
which reads:

1. X-ray cervical spine

-Xray face

-No evidence of bony fracture seen on
cervical region.

-Evidence of radio opaque shadow of
metallic
density
seen
on
temporomandibular joint.

2. X-ray chest PA view.

No evidence of bony fracture seen part
under view.

(emphasis by Court.)

5. A reading of the FIR and the
medico-legal report does not spare a
shadow of doubt that the applicant shot the
complainant-opposite party with a countrymade pistol and the complainant received a
gun shot wound to his neck. It is only by
6 All. Mujeem Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
575
sheer luck that he survived the fatal attack.
Learned counsel for the applicant says that
since there are no chances of conviction
and given the stance of the complainantopposite
party,
who
is
willing
to
compromise, proceedings of the case ought
to be quashed in view of the holding of the
Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab and another
(2014)
6
SCC
466.
In
Narinder
Singh(Supra), the following guidelines
have been laid down:

"29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC
would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are 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/delicate 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
latter 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 to 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, 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
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime."

(Emphasis by Court)

6. Now, here the evidence shows that
the weapon used was a fire-arm and it
brooks little doubt that a person who opens
FIR at another does so with the intention to
kill. He certainly does not do so with the
intention to love or play a jest.

7. In this case, the gun shot injury was
sustained on the neck, which is a vital part
of the body. The medico legal report clearly
shows that there was blackening in the area
of 12cm x 12cm at the site of the injury on
the neck, where the gun shot injury was
received.
The
supplementary
medical
report shows evidence of a radio-opaque
shadow of metallic density seen in the
temporomandibular joint. This shows that
the pellets from the fire-arm were lodged in
the temporomandibular joint. This being
the nature of and injury and the site, beside
the weapon used, to permit the parties to
compromise would be an abdication of the
State's function to prosecute offences
against the society. This certainly, in
opinion of the Court, cannot be permitted.
To the understanding of this Court, the
principle laid down in Narinder Singh
case
does
not
approve
of
such
a
composition and quashing on its basis.

8. This order will in no manner
prejudice in doing an independent of
evidence at the trial.

9. This application is rejected.

10. Let this order be communicated to
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Chitrakoot through the learned Sessions
Judge,
Chitrakoot
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) within 48 hours.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.0.52023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 17732 of 2018

Anuj Kumar Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sanjay Singh, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Ved Prakash Pandey

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 125, 128 & 482: -
Application U/s 482 -Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections - 125, 128 & 482: -
Application U/s 482 - applicant challenging the
summoning order and order passed in criminal
revision as well as further proceedings -
Complaint u/ section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. - FIR -
investigation - final report - protest petition -
final report was rejected - but, after recording
the St.ment u/section 200, 202 Cr.P.C. and after
perusal of entire facts court below dismissed the
complaint case u/section 203 of Cr.P.C. -
against which informant were preferred a
criminal Revision - revisional court allowed the
revision and remanded the matter to court
below for fresh consideration - consequently,
trial court summoned all the accused - applicant
takes plea that they have a right of being heard
before the revision court while remanding the
matter afresh - court finds that, it is not clear as
whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded
to the applicants or the proper service of notices
upon them was ever effected or not which
should have been explicitly mentioned in the
revisional order - held, order of issuance of
process against the accused applicants cannot
be sustained which causing prejudice to him as
such, the impugned order, allowing the revision
without hearing the accused-applicants, is