Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 13 docs - [View All]
B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr on 20 August, 2008
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Haroon And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 February, 2014
Bench: Virendra Vikram Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 
AFR
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5830 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd. Haroon And 3 Ors.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Mani Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 of  B.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 inherent  powers 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.

In view of the above proposition of Law, it lies incumbent in this Court to  consider 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.

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 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.

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.

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

The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Order Date :- 25.2.2014 Sumaira