w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mohd. Haroon & Others v/s State of U.P. & Another

    Criminal Misc. Application No. 5830 of 2014

    Decided On, 25 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

    For the Appellants: Ved Mani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------.



Judgment Text

Virendra Vikram Singh, J.

1. 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1075 of 2011 (State v. 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

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

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.

2. 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 and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, .

3. 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.

4. In the case of B.S. Joshi v. 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.

5. In the case of Nikhil Merchant v. 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 where under the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not bear any further claim against the Company. Under such a peculiar circumstances, the proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

6. The same matter again came before Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 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 v. State of Haryana; Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another. The Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, though held that it cannot be said that the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, , 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 u/s 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 v. State of Punjab (Supra) it is evident that even though the High Court in exercise of powers u/s 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.

7. 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 u/s 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.
O R