# Munshi Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 696
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-22
- **Case number:** Crl. Revision No. 1961 of 2016
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munshi-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-46865
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
279,
304A-
upholdig
the
sentence-the
informant
boarded
a
'Jugar'(
an
unauthorised
vehicle) of the revisionist-the vehicle
2 All. Munshi Singh Vs. State of U.P.
697
overturned by driving negliginetly in
which informant's son died on the spot
and other passengers also sustained
injuries-the act of plying a privately
fabricated contraption of a motor vehicle,
'Jugar' on a public road, then permitting
anyone to ride it, or driving it himself, is
an act utterly rash on the part of
revisionist-by the act of the revisionist's
rashness, the deceased met an untimely
demise-no vehicle can be plied without a
licence under the Act,1988-the person
driving motor vehicles should not take a
chance thinking
that even
if he is
convicted he would be dealt with leniently
by the court.(Para 1 to 21)

B. It is settled law that sentencing must have a
policy of correction. If anyone has to become a
good driver, must have a better training and
moral responsibility. Offences relating to motor
accidents, the criminal courts cannot treat the
nature of offence u/s 304A IPC as attracting the
benevolent provisions of section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act,1958 (Para 12 to 19)

The revision is dismissed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons
including
thre
appellant
(Pandurang, Tuka, and Bilia) attacked him.

27. On appreciation of evidence and
the decisions cited before us, we are
convinced that the prosecution does not
bring home that accused are required to be
punished with aid of section 34 I.P.C.
There was no intention to any act which
was well planned. The incident occurred all
of a sudden.

28. In State of Haryana Vs. Tej
Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1496, it is held that
circumstances which un-erringly comes to
the conclusion that accused had common
intention to cause death only then they
must be convicted. We are convinced that
the offence which is made out is not under
section 304(1) read with 34 I.P.C. The
decision in Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
will help the accused.

29. This takes us to the question of
punishment.
As
far
as
Samoon
is
concerned, he is in jail for more than 14
years. We substitute the life imprisonment
to that of already undergone and he shall be
released forthwith if not required in any
other offence. However, this would be
coupled with the fine imposed by the court
below and he would pay the total fine out
of which 80 percent will go to the family of
the bereaved. The fine be deposited within
12 weeks of his release failing which he
shall
undergo
6
months
simple
imprisonment in default.

30. As long time has elapsed, the
other co-accused, namely, Shahab Alam,
Yaseen and Kallu, whose role as scribed
about is not that of commission of murder
or rather murder amounting to culpable
homicide but have caused injuries which
would fall within the provisions of Section
324 I.P.C. The punishment is that which
they have undergone and the fine would be
enhanced to Rs. 5000/- to each looking to
their age, failing which three months
further imprisonment.

31. The appeals are partly allowed.
As far as Samoon is concerned he be
released from jail immediately if not
wanted in any other offence.

32. The record be sent back to the
trial court.

33. The judgement be sent to the jail
authorities.

34. The fine, which is already
deposited by the accused, will be given a
set off.
----------
(2021)02ILR A696
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2021

BEFORE

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

Crl. Revision No. 1961 of 2016

Munshi Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Sri P.N. Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
279,
304A-
upholdig
the
sentence-the
informant
boarded
a
'Jugar'(
an
unauthorised
vehicle) of the revisionist-the vehicle
2 All. Munshi Singh Vs. State of U.P.
697
overturned by driving negliginetly in
which informant's son died on the spot
and other passengers also sustained
injuries-the act of plying a privately
fabricated contraption of a motor vehicle,
'Jugar' on a public road, then permitting
anyone to ride it, or driving it himself, is
an act utterly rash on the part of
revisionist-by the act of the revisionist's
rashness, the deceased met an untimely
demise-no vehicle can be plied without a
licence under the Act,1988-the person
driving motor vehicles should not take a
chance thinking
that even
if he is
convicted he would be dealt with leniently
by the court.(Para 1 to 21)

B. It is settled law that sentencing must have a
policy of correction. If anyone has to become a
good driver, must have a better training and
moral responsibility. Offences relating to motor
accidents, the criminal courts cannot treat the
nature of offence u/s 304A IPC as attracting the
benevolent provisions of section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act,1958 (Para 12 to 19)

The revision is dismissed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. St. of Punj. Vs Balwinder Singh & ors.(2012)
2 SCC 182

2. Sunil Suman Kaushik Vs St. of Har. &
ors.(1997) 1 RCR (Civil) 591

3. Cherubin Gregory Vs St. of Bih.,(1964) AIR
SC 205

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

1. This revision is directed against a
judgment and order of Mr. Vivek, the then
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Court No. 6, Agra dated 07.06.2016, partly
allowing Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2013,
and modifying the revisionist's conviction
and sentences awarded by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11,
Agra, vide judgment and order dated
02.07.2013 in Criminal Case No. 572 of
2010, State v. Munshi Singh, acquitting
him of the charge under Section 337 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18601, but upholding
his conviction for offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the
revisionist and Mr. Nitin Kesarwani,
learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the
State.

3. The prosecution case, set out in the
First Information Report2, is that on
08.06.2001, the informant, Tunda Ram,
along with his son Mukesh, besides Pratap
Singh, son of Sohran Singh, a native of
Village - Nagla Veer Bhan, Police Station -
Jagner, and another Gopi Chand, son of
Bhanwar Singh, a resident of Singaich,
Police Station - Jagner, District - Agra, was
on way to his Village - Gopalpura. He was
waiting for a conveyance at Saraindhi
Chauraha. The party could not find a
vehicle to undertake the journey. In
consequence, they boarded a "Jugar" (an
unauthorised and illegal contraption of a
powered vehicle) that was headed towards
Sahpau. This vehicle of sorts, stated to be
driven at a high speed and negligently,
overturned near the Siddh Baba Mandir, at
about 12 noon. In consequence of this
accident, the informant's son, Mukesh, a
boy of 23 years, died on the spot. The other
passengers on board the contraption also
sustained injuries.

4. It was mentioned in the FIR that
the informant had come to report the
incident at the station, after informing his
relatives. It was also stated that he could
identify the driver, if confronted. Based on
the aforesaid written information, Crime
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 103 of 2001, under Sections 279, 337,
304 IPC was registered at Police Station -
Jagner, District - Agra.

5. After investigation, the police
submitted a charge-sheet against the
revisionist. The Magistrate took cognizance
of the offence. The revisionist, who is the
sole accused of the case, denied the
charges, and was put on his trial. The
prosecution examined four witnesses, that
is to say, P.W.1 Pratap Singh, P.W.2 Tunda
Ram (father of the deceased), P.W.3 Dr.
A.K. Singh, and P.W.4 Gopi Chand. The
documentary evidence, that was produced,
included the charge-sheet, the site-plan, the
written information received, and the chik
FIR.

6. The accused, in his statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, stated that the prosecution
was false, but declined to enter defence. It
was P.W.2, the deceased's father, who
supported the prosecution, testifying to all
the facts in issue and the relevant facts. He
identified the revisionist in the dock as the
driver, apart from testifying to facts relating
to boarding the vehicle, the fact about it
being driven at a high speed and with
negligence, the fact about the accident, and
the resultant death of Mukesh, the victim.

7. It appears that before the
Magistrate, it was urged on behalf of the
revisionist that he was moving in the Jugar
along with his family, when the deceased
and the other injured voluntarily boarded it
as gratuitous passengers. The revisionist
did not offer them a ride, or compelled
them to board it. It was, therefore,
contended that there was no such duty of
care owed, which may invite a prosecution
under Section 304A or 279 IPC. The
Magistrate found the fact about the
accident and the resultant death in the
circumstances, stated by the prosecution, to
be proved. The Magistrate held that it is
established that the revisionist was driving
a Jugar, regarding which a report of
accident has been submitted. She further
held that a Jugar has no registration
number. It is illegal to ply it. The testimony
of witnesses show that, at the time of the
incident, there were passengers on board.
The Magistrate has noticed that there were
about 25 passengers, according to the
testimony of P.W.2, whereas according to
P.W.4, there were 7-8 passengers. The
Magistrate
rejected
the
revisionist's
contention that he was out on a sojourn
with his family. The Magistrate has
disbelieved the fact that there were family
members of the revisionist on board,
because none of the witnesses mentioned
the fact about the revisionist's family
members riding the contraption. The
Magistrate has concluded that the vehicle
was ferrying passengers for hire, inviting
them to board his vehicle. It was also
concluded that he drove the vehicle
negligently, resulting in the fatal accident.

8. The Magistrate convicted the
revisionist for offences punishable under
Sections
279,
337
and
304A
IPC,
sentencing him to terms of two months,
two months and six months of rigorous
imprisonment on each count in that order,
with a direction that the sentences would
run concurrently. The revisionist carried an
appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, which
was allowed in part, acquitting the
revisionist of the charge under Section 337
IPC, but affirming his conviction and
sentence for the offences under Sections
279 and 304A IPC.

9. Aggrieved, this revision has been
brought.
2 All. Munshi Singh Vs. State of U.P.
699

10. It is urged before this Court by
Mr. Anil Kumar Srivatava, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the revisionist, that
no responsibility can be fastened upon the
revisionist because he was not plying his
vehicle for any commercial gain, hire or
reward. The deceased and his father had
asked for a lift, that was given out of
humanitarian
considerations.
The
revisionist was out with his family, when
the deceased and his father sought his
assistance to ferry them, as there was no
vehicle around. It is urged that in these
circumstances, even if a case of accident
involving the vehicle in question is to be
believed, no liability under Section 304A or
279 IPC can be fastened. It is further
submitted that the courts below held in
manifest error that the accident happened
the way it is claimed by the prosecution,
involving
the
revisionist's
vehicle,
inasmuch as there is no substantive
evidence available on record to sustain that
finding; and a fortiori the revisionist's
conviction. The orders of conviction passed
by the two courts below are termed as
perverse. It is urged that the conviction be
overturned.

11. Mr. Nitin Kesarwani, learned
A.G.A.,
has
supported
the
orders
impugned. He submits that the findings of
the courts below are based on a just,
plausible and logical inference, from the
evidence available on record. It is not for
this Court to interfere with these findings of
facts,
in
exercise
of
its
revisional
jurisdiction.

12. So far as the contention based
about the incident taking place the way it
has been found by the two courts below to
have occurred, it is not open to this Court
to reappraise evidence. This Court finds
that the two courts below have believed the
evidence of the deceased's father, who was
a co-passenger on board the ill-fated
contraption of a vehicle, and there is no
reason to discard the findings of the two
courts below on the fact in issue and the
relevant facts attending it. The submission
of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the revisionist that he was not plying his
vehicle for hire or reward, but acceded to a
request by the informant and his son for a
lift, rendering him not liable for the
offences,
cannot
be
accepted.
The
distinction between a gratuitous passenger
riding a vehicle, not meant for ferrying
passengers, may have some relevance in a
claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 19883
but that is quite irrelevant, so far as an
offence under Section 304A IPC, or, for
that matter, Section 279 IPC is concerned.
The offence under Section 304A IPC is
about death caused by doing any rash or
negligent act, that is short of culpable
homicide. The gist of the offence has been
elucidated by the Supreme Court in State
of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh & Others4
where it has been held :

10. Section 304-A was inserted in the
Penal Code by Penal Code (Amendment)
Act 27 of 1870 to cover those cases
wherein a person causes the death of
another by such acts as are rash or
negligent but there is no intention to cause
death and no knowledge that the act will
cause death. The case should not be
covered by Sections 299 and 300 only then
it will come under this section. The section
provides punishment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years
or fine or both in case of homicide by rash
or negligent act. To bring a case of
homicide under Section 304-A IPC, the
following conditions must exist, namely,

(1) there must be death of the person
in question;
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) the accused must have caused such
death; and

(3) that such act of the accused was
rash or negligent and that it did not amount
to culpable homicide.

13. It would, thus, appear that there is
nothing in the ingredient of an offence
punishable under Section 304A IPC that
would connect it to the fine principle of
torts, regulating the right of an injured
party to recover, in case of a motor accident
governed by the provisions of the Act of
1988. The distinction in compensation
cases between a gratuitous passenger riding
a non-passenger vehicle vis-à-vis the
liability of the insurer, will have no
application here. All that is relevant is the
causing of death by a rash or negligent act -
whether a motor vehicle is involved or not,
is not at all relevant. But, it is relevant
whether the act of the revisionist in
permitting
the
deceased
and
his
companions to board a motor vehicle,
which he knew was not authorized to ply
under the Act of 1988, is rash enough to
invite
the
consequences
contemplated
under the Statute. A Jugar is a privately
fabricated motor vehicle, which cannot be
registered under the Act of 1988. No
license is issued to ply such a vehicle.
There
is
a
direction
about
these
contraptions called Jugar to be found, in a
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Sunil Suman Kaushik v. State of
Haryana & Others5 while dealing with a
Public Interest Litigation inter-alia seeking
prohibition of plying such contraptions in
pubic places. It was held and directed :

5. The petitioner has also prayed for
the stoppage of unauthorised use of
vehicles such as ''Jugars' on the road. Jugar
is a vehicle fitted with an engine. Under
sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, motor vehicle has been
defined as follows:--

"2(28) "motor vehicles" or "vehicle"
means any mechanically propelled vehicle
adapted for use upon roads whether the
power of propulsion is transmitted thereto
from an external or internal source and
includes a chassis to which a body has not
been attached and a trailer but does not
include a vehicle running upon fixed rails
or a vehicle of a special type adapted for
use only in a factory or any other enclosed
premises or a vehicle having less than four
wheels fitted with engine capacity of not
exceeding (twenty five) cubic centimeters."

6. Therefore, any vehicle which is
mechanically propelled for use on roads
comes within the definition of motor
vehicle. Under the provisions of the said
Act, no vehicle can be plied without a
licence. Therefore, respondents Nos. 1 and
3 are directed to take effective steps to
prevent the plying of the ''Jugars' on the
public
places
without
getting
them
registered and obtaining necessary licence
under the provisions of Motor Vehicles
Act.

14. The registration of a motor
vehicle is a sine qua non, for it being driven
in any public place or any place, as
mandated by Section 39 of the Act of 1988.
The Registration Authorities ensure strict
standards of manufacture in terms of safety
to the occupants of a motor vehicle, and to
third parties, without which, vehicles would
not be admitted to registration. Generally
speaking,
if
at
all,
privately
done
contraption of a motor vehicle would not be
registered under Chapter IV of the Act of
1988. Whatever the standards of safety
insisted
upon
by
the
Registration
Authorities, unless a vehicle is registered, it
cannot be plied anywhere. Thus, the act of
plying a privately fabricated contraption of
2 All. Munshi Singh Vs. State of U.P.
701
a motor vehicle, popularly called a Jugar on
a public road, and then permitting anyone
to ride it, or driving it himself, is an act
utterly rash on the revisionist's part. By that
act of the revisionist's rashness, the
deceased met an untimely demise. It must
be also noted that rashness and negligence
are no mere synonyms. An act may not be
negligent, and yet utterly rash. This was
precisely the case in Cherubin Gregory v.
State of Bihar6. In Cherubin Gregory
(supra) the facts there can be best
recapitulated
in
the
words
of
their
Lordships, which read :

....The facts, as found are that in order
to prevent the ingress of persons like the
deceased into his latrine by making such
ingress dangerous (1) the accused fixed up
a copper wire across, the passage leading
up his latrine, (2) that this wire was naked
and uninsulated and carried current from
the electrical wiring of his house to which
it was connected (3) there was no warning
that the wire was live., (4) the deceased
managed to pass into the latrine without
contacting the wire but that as she came out
her hand happened to touch it and she got a
shock as a result of which she died soon
after. ....

15. It was held in the context of these
facts in Cherubin Gregory, thus :

4. The voltage of the current passing
through the naked wire being high enough
to be lethal, there could no dispute that
charging it with current of that voltage was
a "rash act" done in reckless disregard of
the serious consequences to people coming
in contact with it.

16.

The
distinction
between
"negligence" and "rashness" has been
elucidated in the Law Lexicon by P.
Ramanatha Aiyer (3rd Edition), where at
Page 1188-1189, it is adumbrated :

There is a clear distinction between
'negligence
and
rashness'
and
that
distinction is contemplated even by S. 279,
IPC. In the case of negligence, the party
does not do an act which he was bound to
do, because he adverts not to it. In the case
of rashness, the party does an act and
breaks a positive duty. He thinks of the
probable mischief, but in consequence, of a
missupposition begotten by insufficient
advertence, he assumes that the mischief
will not ensue in the given instance or case.
The radical idea denoted is always this. The
party runs a risk of which he is conscious.
Culpable rashness is often explained as
acting
with
the
consciousness
that
dangerous consequences will follow, but
with the hope that they will not follow and
with the belief that the actor has taken
sufficient
precautions
to
prevent
the
happening of such consequence. Similarly,
culpable negligence is acting without the
consciousness that dangerous consequences
will follow, but in the circumstances which
show that the actor has not exercised the
caution that was incumbent of him. J.C.
May, In re, MLJ: QD (1956-1960) Vol. IV
C144: 1960 CrLJ 239 : AIR 1960 Mad 50 :
1960 Mad LJ (Cri) 570. [Motor Vehicles
Act (4 of 1939), S. 116]

17. This Court is of opinion that the
act of the revisionist in fabricating or
causing to be fabricated a contraption of a
motor vehicle, and moving out on the road,
was an inherently rash act, unless that
vehicle was certified to be according to
safety norms by an authorized government
agency and then registered under Section
39 of the Act of 1988. This vehicle, in
whatever manner, if the cause of death of
any person, regardless of the fact whether
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the victim was a gratuitous passenger, a
family member, or a third party, would
render the revisionist liable for an offence
of death by negligence.

18. Here, there are further findings
that the contraption was indeed driven
negligently at high speed, resulting in an
accident, leading to the victim's death. In
the face of these facts and the position of
law, the charge of causing death by
negligence is well established against the
revisionist. So far as the evidence under
Section 279 IPC is concerned, that, on
evidence too, is proven beyond doubt.
There is no scope for interference with the
findings of the two courts below, who are
ad idem about the revisionist's guilt.

19. Now, turning to the question of
sentence, Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the revisionist, submits
that it is not a case where anything was
intentioned by the revisionist. He was himself
the driver of the vehicle and what happened
was a pure accident. Looking to the nature of
the vehicle that the revisionist employed to
venture out on the roads, and the evidence
about negligence forthcoming against him,
this Court does not think that the revisionist is
entitled to leniency in the matter of sentence.
Accident on roads that are caused by rashness
or negligence are a specie of pernicious
conduct that has devastating consequences
for not only for the victim, but the entire
family. It is an offence which impacts the
society by rendering women destitute,
children orphans and old parents staring at
the darkness of a lost progeny, just on the
rush of adrenaline capturing the man, who
manouvers the steering of a motor vehicle
and presses the accelerator. Here, the case is
worse, because the vehicle involved is one
that ought never to have been fabricated,
much less driven in a public place. In this
connection, it would again be relevant to
mention the authority of their Lordships in
Balwinder Singh (supra) where adopting a
deterrent stance in sentencing in matters of
rash and negligent driving, it was held :

11. Even a decade ago, considering the
galloping trend in road accidents in India and
its devastating consequences, this Court in
Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2000) 5
SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] held that,
while considering the quantum of sentence to
be imposed for the offence of causing death
by rash or negligent driving of automobiles,
one of the prime considerations should be
deterrence. A professional driver should not
take a chance thinking that even if he is
convicted, he would be dealt with leniently
by the court.

12. The following principles laid down
in that decision are very relevant: (Dalbir
Singh case [(2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 1208] , SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1
& 13)

"1. When automobiles have become
death traps any leniency shown to drivers
who are found guilty of rash driving would
be at the risk of further escalation of road
accidents. All those who are manning the
steering
of
automobiles,
particularly
professional drivers, must be kept under
constant reminders of their duty to adopt
utmost care and also of the consequences
befalling them in cases of dereliction. One
of the most effective ways of keeping such
drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a
deterrent element in the sentencing sphere.
Any latitude shown to them in that sphere
would tempt them to make driving
frivolous and a frolic.

***

13. Bearing in mind the galloping
trend in road accidents in India and the
devastating consequences visiting the
victims and their families, criminal courts
2 All. Munshi Singh Vs. State of U.P.
703
cannot treat the nature of the offence
under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the
benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the
Probation of
Offenders
Act.
While
considering the quantum of sentence to
be imposed for the offence of causing
death by rash or negligent driving of
automobiles,
one
of
the
prime
considerations should be deterrence. A
professional driver pedals the accelerator
of the automobile almost throughout his
working hours. He must constantly
inform himself that he cannot afford to
have a single moment of laxity or
inattentiveness when his leg is on the
pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He
cannot and should not take a chance
thinking that a rash driving need not
necessarily cause any accident; or even if
any
accident
occurs
it
need
not
necessarily result in the death of any
human being; or even if such death
ensues he might not be convicted of the
offence; and lastly, that even if he is
convicted he would be dealt with
leniently by the court. He must always
keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he
is convicted of the offence for causing
death of a human being due to his callous
driving of the vehicle he cannot escape
from a jail sentence. This is the role
which the courts can play, particularly at
the level of trial courts, for lessening the
high rate of motor accidents due to
callous driving of automobiles."

The same principles have been
reiterated in B. Nagabhushanam v. State
of Karnataka[(2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008)
3 SCC (Cri) 61].

13. It is settled law that sentencing
must have a policy of correction. If
anyone has to become a good driver,
must have a better training in traffic
laws and moral responsibility with
special reference to the potential injury
to human life and limb. Considering the
increased number of road accidents, this
Court,
on
several
occasions,
has
reminded the criminal courts dealing
with the offences relating to motor
accidents that they cannot treat the
nature of the offence under Section
304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent
provisions of Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958. We fully
endorse the view expressed by this
Court in Dalbir Singh[(2000) 5 SCC 82
: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] .

14. While considering the quantum
of sentence to be imposed for the
offence of causing death or injury by
rash
and
negligent
driving
of
automobiles,
one
of
the
prime
considerations should be deterrence.
The persons driving motor vehicles
cannot and should not take a chance
thinking that even if he is convicted he
would be dealt with leniently by the
court.

20. In view of what this Court has
found above, there is no good ground to
interfere with the orders impugned.

21. In the result, this revision fails
and is dismissed. The revisionist shall
surrender before the Trial Court within
a week, to serve out the remainder of
the sentence. Upon the revisionist's
surrender,
the
sureties
shall
stand
discharged.

22.

Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Agra
through the learned Sessions Judge, Agra
forthwith, along with a copy of this
judgment. Let the lower court records be
sent down at once.
----------
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)02ILR A704
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Crl. Revision No. 2156 of 2016

Mahboob & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, Sri Rajeev
Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Sri Vipul Kumar
Singh, Sri Ashutosh Tiwari

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504,506 & Dowry Prohibition Act,1961Section 3⁄4- setting aside the convictionParties settled their disputes and decided
for a one time alimony and live separately
with their husbands-the dispute between
the parties was a matrimonial dispute- the
revisionists have been acquitted of the
charges levelled against them. (Para 1 to
26)

B. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a FIR or Criminal
proceedings
on
the
ground
that
a
settlement has been arrived at between
the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence
u/s 320 of the Code. The power to quash
u/s 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable. (15 to 22)

C. Criminal cases involving offences which
arise
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar
transactions
with
an essentially
civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall
for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute. (Para 16)

The revision is allowed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj.,(2012)10 SCC 303

2. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641

3. Bitan Sengupta & anr. Vs St. of W. B. & anr.
(2018) 18 SCC 366,

4. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Har. (2003) 4 SCC 675

5. A.R. Antulay Vs R. S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC
602

6. Montreal Street Rly. Co. Vs Normadin (1917)
AC 170

7. St.of Guj. Vs Ram Prakash P. Puri (1969) 3
SCC 156

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Chandra Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri
Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Advocate holding
brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel
for the Opposite Party No. 2 and Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. The trial court record was
summoned which has been received on
11.01.2018, as per the office report. The
same has also been perused.

3. The present revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal
Case No. 68 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs.
Mahboob
and
others)
under