Allowed

Gyanendra @ Gyanu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022A482/23599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for compoundable and non-compoundable offences. The High Court quashed the proceedings, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, noting the parties had entered into a compromise regarding a trivial dispute mediated by village elders.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal proceedings in Case No. 27626 of 2022 and Case Crime No. 165 of 2021.

Gyanendra @ Gyanu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23599 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gyanendra @ Gyanu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings in Case No. 27626 of 2022 as well as Case Crime No. 165 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nauhjhil, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Mathura.

¶6

During pendency of this application the parties have entered into compromise and settled the matter amicably. This Court passed order on 06.08.2022 with the direction to Court below to verify the contents of compromise. In pursuance thereof a report has been submitted by Court concerned on 22.08.2022 verifying the contents of compromise and parties thereof.

¶7

The applicants are represented by Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra, Advocate and Opposite Party No. 2 is represented by Sri Chandra Prakash Tripathi, Advocate.

¶8

Inherent Power of the High Court and Quashing of proceedings for non compoundable offences :- (I) A three judge bench of the Supreme Court while considering conflict between Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, on the issue of exercising power under section 482 CrPC in regard to above referred point in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others:(2019)5 SCC 688 and, after considering earlier judgments Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641;

¶9

¶10

and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh : (2019) 4 SCC 268; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar:(2019) 5 SCC 570,clarified Narinder Singh (supra) and held that :-

¶11

"15 Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶12

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶13

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶14

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶15

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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

¶16

¶17

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶18

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶19

Considering that the parties have entered into compromise and that parties are resident of same village, dispute was on a trivial issue and elders of village have mediate the dispute and for their peaceful life and also in view of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan (supra) , entire Criminal Proceedings of Case No. 27626 of 2022 as well as Case Crime No. 165 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nauhjhil, District Mathura, are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.12.2022/AK (Sl. No. 31 out of 280 fresh cases)

¶21

Digitally signed by AWADESH KUMAR Date: 2022.12.02 17:52:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyanendra @ Gyanu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra @ Gyanu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Surat and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shreeram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Makhan Chu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harishchandra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ram Dutt Vs State of U.P.