Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 887

J. J. MUNIR
Mujeem – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prabhakar Chandel.
For the Respondent: Devendra Singh.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that quashing proceedings on the basis of compromise in a Section 307 IPC case is not approved and rejected the application. (!) (!) - The decision cites that offences under Section 307 IPC are heinous and constitute crimes against society; compounding purely based on compromise is not permitted where evidence suggests strong possibility of conviction. (!) (!) (!) - The medical reports show a firearm injury to the neck with a radio-opaque metallic density in the temporomandibular joint, indicating pellets lodged from a firearm. This supports serious nature of the offense. (!) (!) - The court emphasizes that timing of settlement matters; cases with near-complete evidence or post-conviction stages generally should not be allowed to be quashed based on settlement. (!) - The application for quashing was rejected, and the order directed communication to the Additional Sessions Judge. (!) (!)

What is the court's stance on quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where there is a compromise between parties in an offense under Section 307 IPC?

What are the factors the High Court considers in deciding whether to accept a compromise and quash criminal proceedings in a heinous offense case, particularly regarding medical evidence and nature of injury?

What is the outcome of Application U/s 482 No. 17220 of 2023 (State v. Mujeem) in Session Trial No. 152 of 2012?

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This application has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 152 of 2012, State vs. Mujeem (arising out of Case Crime No. 950 of 2010) under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Raipura, District Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot.

2. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the parties have compromised the matter and moved a compromise application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot in Session Trial No. 152 of 2012, State vs. Mujeem on 04.04.2023, a certified copy whereof is annexed as Annexure no. 5 to this application. It is argued that there are no chances of conviction since the complainant-opposite party has compromised and would not testify in support of the prosecution, in case trial is held.

3. A perusal of the prosecution case shows that according to the first informant, who is the complainant-opposite party no. 2 here, the complainant Sahid Ali son of Raja Husain, a resident of Village Dera, Mauja Bandhi of P.S. Raipura, District Chitrakoot along with his uncle Shamshad on 29.12.2010 was riding a motorcycle proceeding home

Click Here to Read the rest of this document