Allahabad High Court
Yuvraj Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Through Principal … on 24 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4940 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 753 of 2022 Applicant :- Yuvraj Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anubhav Prakash Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The present application has been filed for the following main relief(s):-
“1. Quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.58419/2017; styled as State Vs. Yuvraj Singh & Anr. under Section 307 IPC pending in the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow arises out of Case Crime No.647/2014 dated 14.08.2014, u/s 307 I.P.C. registered at Police Station ? Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
2. Stay the proceedings of aforesaid Criminal Case No.58419/2017; styled as State Vs. Yuvraj Singh & Anr. under section 307 IPC pending in the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow during pendency of instant petition in the interest of justice.
3. Quash impugned cognizance order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No.58419/2017; styled as State Vs. Yuvraj Singh u/s 307 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
4. Quash impugned charge-sheet No.170/15 dated 18.06.2015 under section 307 IPC arises from Case Crime No.647/2014 dated 14.08.2014 u/s 307 IPC registered at police station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.”
4. It is stated that taking note of the facts, as indicated including in the FIR registered as FIR/Case Crime No.647 of 2014, under Section 307 I.P.C., PS. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, according to which the applicant alongwith others fired upon the informant- Ved Prakash Yadav- opposite party no.2 and no injury was sustained in incident, this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties, which has been verified by the trial court vide order dated 14.03.2022, as would appear from Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
5. It is further submitted that another FIR bearing FIR/Case Crime No.647-A was lodged by the applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2 and according to the same the informant along with his friends fired upon applicant no.1 and also assaulted him with saria and steel rod as also demanded Rs.2,50,000/- for submitting the tender.
6. It is further stated that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties settled the dispute which was essentially of commercial in nature and entered into the compromise and signed the compromise deed.
7. It is further stated that based upon the compromise, opposite party no.2 -Ved Prakash Yadav (accused in Case Crime No.647-A of 2014) approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No.4660 of 2022 (Ved Prakash yadav & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another) and this Court, after considering the facts of the case including the fact that no injury was sustained to anyone in the incident as also the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2014) 8 SCC 466, allowed the said petition and quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No.58402 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.647-A of 2014, vide order dated 19.07.2022.
8. The order dated 19.07.2022, referred above, is extracted hereinunder.
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr.Abhishek Srivastava for opposite party No.2. Vakalatnama filed by him is taken on record.
2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.58402 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow arising out of Case crime No.647A of 2014 dated 14.08.2014 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
3. Ground for quashing of the proceedings is compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. The petitioners have earlier approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.742 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 disposed of the said petition with a direction to the parties to appear before the trial Court for the purposes of verification of compromise.
5. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.02.2022, the parties appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide order dated 14.03.2022 verified the compromise. Certified copy of the compromise has been placed on record as Annexure-4.
6. In para 6 of the petition, it has been specifically stated that no injury was caused to the complainant or any other person in the incident. It has been further stated that cross FIR being FIR No.647 of 2014 was lodged on the same day on behalf of the petitioners against respondent No.2 and others under Section 307 IPC.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State of Punjab & Anr : (2014) 8 SCC 466 in para 29.6 and 29.7 has held as under:-
“29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
8. I have perused the FIR and charge-sheet.
9. There is no life threatening injury which was allegedly caused by the petitioners who are the accused in FIR in question. Prima facie ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) and also taking into account the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, it would be appropriate to quash criminal proceedings as continuance of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
10. The petition is allowed.
11. Proceedings of Criminal Case No.58402 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow arising out of Case crime No.647A of 2014 dated 14.08.2014 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow are hereby quashed.”
9. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed,as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out ofCase Crime No.647/2014, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
10. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 24.1.2025/Anand/-
[ad_1]
Source link