Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023/17/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants sought quashing of a charge sheet and trial proceedings in a murder case based on a compromise between them and the victim's family. The single-judge bench relied on Supreme Court precedent to reject the plea.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet and trial proceedings is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Dinesh Kumar Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra 'Rudra', learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Diwakar Prasad Tiwari, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.

¶6

By means of instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned Charge Sheet No. 37/2013 dated 14.03.2013, under Section 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Wazeerganj, District Gonda as well as entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 619/2022 (State v. Dinesh & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime NO. 6/2013, under Section 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Wazirganj, District Gonda pending in the court of learned Special Judge EC Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, in the light of compromise dated 17.12.2022 entered into between the parties.

¶7

The aforesaid case was initiated by filing an FIR on 10.01.2013 against the applicants alleging a murder committed by the accused persons. During pendency of the trial the parties have entered into a compromise, a copy whereof has been annexed along with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application in which the informant has stated that he is not an eye witness of the incident and he has mentioned the name of the applicants on the basis of information given by other persons.

¶8

The present case involves commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, which is a very heinous offence and the learned counsel for the applicants could not satisfy the Court that the case involving commission of offence under Section 302 IPC can be decided on the basis of compromise.

¶9

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

¶10

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different

¶11

from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute . Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."

¶12

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), I am of the view that the proceedings of trial of an offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be decided on the basis of compromise.

¶13

The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Pradeep/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi Vs the State of U.P. and Ors.

Abeer Gupta Thru. Natural Guardian Ankur Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Srikant Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home. and Others

Kanchan @ Srimati Kanchan Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Saran Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chandan Yadav @ Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home