Application for quashing proceedings under Section 307 IPC was allowed. The court quashed the trial citing verified compromise, absence of clear material for alleged gunshot injury, and potential abuse of process.
Quashed proceedings in Criminal Case No. 975 of 2016 against Surendra Kumar under Section 307 IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8313 of 2023
Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Agarval
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This application has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 975 of 2016 State vs. Surendra Kumar (arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2016), under Sections 307 IPC, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.
The applicant has come up seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings on the basis of a compromise dated 08.08.2022 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr. The applicant had earlier approached this Court for the same relief by way of Application under Section 482 No. 7537 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2022, the material part whereof reads:
2. In view of above, the prayers made in this application cannot be considered at this stage, however, in case any compromise is filed before Trial Court in Case No. 1781 of 2016 (State vs. Surendra Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2016, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar, it shall verify the same in presence of parties and applicants will have a liberty to approach this Court afresh along with verification report/order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today.
3. With aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.
In compliance with the said order passed by this Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr has verified the compromise vide order dated 10.01.2023 and a certified copy of the order verifying compromise is annexed at page no. 86 of the paper book. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf the injured, to wit, Ashwani Kumar Gupta. He is represented by
Mr. Ankit Agarval, Advocate.
Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the injured and the learned AGA on behalf of the State.
Vide order dated 20.03.2023, the State was called upon to disclose their stand on a counter affidavit within a week whether this case can be quashed on the basis of a compromise within the parameters of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The State have not filed a counter affidavit.
Looking to the fact that there is an allegation about shooting the victim, this Court called for the medico legal report of injury on record from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr vide order dated 27.03.2023 in order to ascertain the nature of the injury sustained by the injured. The said report has been forwarded to this Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr vide report dated 03.04.2023.
A perusal of the report shows that all that is noticed is, "foreign body producing streaking artifacts noted in body of L1 vertebrai." This is in the report from the Kailash Hospital, Khurja, Bulandshar. Upon doing NCCT of the whole abdomen + contrast study, in X-ray dorsal spine AP/Lateral report, "radio opaque foreign body noted in body of L1 vertebrai." The report of the hospital, that is the discharge summary dated 09.04.2016, is annexed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report dated 03.04.2023. This shows that the injured was admitted to the said hospital from 02.04.2016 to 09.04.2016. The hospital's discharge summary indicates that the injured was received from casualty with alleged gunshot injury at about 11:00 a.m. at
Khurja. When the final report in this case was put in, there was no medico legal report nor the statement of any doctor available on the basis of which a case of shooting could be accepted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also reported that there is no medical report about the injury on record and there is no report also to show that the victim received a gun shot injury. A further investigation was also ordered and again a final report was put in. Finally, vide order dated 24.11.2019, cognizance was taken against the applicant by the Court, rejecting the final report.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the records, this Court finds that there is no obvious and ostensible material to show that the victim received a gun shot injury as alleged in the FIR. In these circumstances, once the injured has compromised and the compromise has been verified, this Court is of opinion that the Court can act upon the said compromise. The reason is that the case under Section 307 IPC is not obvious, so as the case of shooting. There is little material about it.
Looking to the terms of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served by permitting this prosecution to continue, which would be an abuse of process of Court. Rather, it would involve avoidable expenditure of resources, time and energy in holding a trial, the result whereof is obvious. It would also result in harassment of the parties. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
This Application is, accordingly, allowed . Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 975 of 2016 State vs. Surendra Kumar (arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2016), under Sections 307 IPC, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, are hereby quashed.
An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr that all proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 975 of 2016 State vs. Surendra Kumar (arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2016), under Sections 307 IPC, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr stand quashed under orders of this Court.
This part of the order shall be caused to be carried out in the records of the police station concerned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, through the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr and the S.H.O. of P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Deepak
Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 307 IPC can be quashed on ground of compromise and lack of medical evidence supporting alleged shooting.
What is the effect of verified compromise where medical report does not conclusively establish gunshot injury in a Section 307 IPC case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶12
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶12
Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surendra Kumar
State of U.P.
Deepak Kumar Pandey
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
