Nirmal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

Nirmal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheets Nos. 609 and 609A of 2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 03.11.2020 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 299 of 2020 (State Vs. Nirmal Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the compromise dated 29.06.2024 between the applicants and the informant.

Court's answer

Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries, the Court found no good ground to compound the offence, deciding in the light of the Apex Court judgments in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat.

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into account that the injured had received a grievous injury on the head, i.e. on a vital part of the body, and that a tattooing mark was present, in concluding that the applicants were not entitled to the relief prayed for.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Application U/S 482 No. 30380 of 2024) filed by Nirmal Singh and 2 others seeking quashing of charge-sheet No. 609 of 2020 (dated 31.10.2020), charge-sheet No. 609A of 2020 (dated 29.01.2021), the cognizance/summoning order dated 03.11.2020 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 299 of 2020 (State Vs. Nirmal Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. Baheri, District- Bareilly (arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2020), pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, on the basis of a compromise dated 29.06.2024 between the applicants and the informant. Held: considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries — the injured having received a grievous injury on the head, a vital part of the body, with a tattooing mark also present — no good ground was made out to compound the offence, in the light of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, and Daxaben vs. The State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936. The relief sought was refused and the application was dismissed as lacking merit (order dated 17.4.2025).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56603

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30380 of 2024

Applicant :- Nirmal Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mukti Nath Dwivedi,G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and and learned AGA for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet No. 609 of 2020, dated 31.10.2020 and charge-sheet No. 609A of 2020, dated 29.01.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 03.11.2020 as well as the entire proceeding of the Case No. 299 of 2020 (State Vs. Nirmal Singh and others), Under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC P.S. Baheri, District- Bareilly, arising out of the Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District- Bareilly, on the basis of the compromise dated 29.06.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that applicants and informant are family members and on account of some dispute, informant lodged the instant first information report. Now, they have settled their dispute out of court and entered into a compromise. He further submitted that impugned proceedings against the applicants be quashed on account of compromise entered into between the parties.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 & 3 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that informant does not want to proceed with the matter and impugned proceedings be quashed in terms of compromise entered into between the parties.

Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that injured has received grievous injury on head i.e. on vital part of the body and tattooing mark is also present, hence,

applicants are not entitled for relief as prayed.

Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. Considering the gravity of offence and nature of injuries as noted above, I do not find any good ground to compound the offence in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 as well as in the case of Daxaben vs. The State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 .

Accordingly, the relief as sought by the applicants is refused.

The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed .

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Aditya

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad