Back
2023 Supreme(All) 887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Mujeem – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 17220 of 2023
Decided On : 17-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prabhakar Chandel.
For the Respondent: Devendra Singh.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Quash entire proceedings – Willing to compromise – Attempt to murder – Held, Supplementary medical report shows evidence of a radio-opaque shadow of metallic density seen in temporomandibular joint – Shows that pellets from fire-arm were lodged in temporomandibular joint – Being nature of injury and site, beside weapon used, to permit parties to compromise would be an abdication of State's function to prosecute offences against society – Certainly, in opinion of Court, cannot be permitted – To understanding of this Court, principle laid down case does not approve of such a composition and quashing on its basis – Application rejected.
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 from village Bandhi. When the two reached the Kapoori turning, the applicant, Mujeem was waiting by the side of the canal. It is said that he bore a grudge against the applicant. Upon seeing the complainant, the applicant chased the complaiant at about 7:30 in the evening, and, shortly thereafter, opened fire. The complainant received a gun shot injury to his neck. Despite the injury, the complainant and his uncle gave a chase to the applicant, but he made good his escape. The injuries were subjected to a medico-legal examination at the Combined Hospital Chitrakoot, where the following injury was noted:
“1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm back of the neck blackening 12 cm x 12 cm around it. Swelling goes to lateral side of neck up to neck. Depth could not be ascertained. Kept under observation. Fresh blood present. Adv. X-ray Neck.
Opinion-Above mention injury caused by fire-arm and fresh.”
Later on an X-ray examination of the injury was done and the Department of Radiology, M.L.N. Medical College, S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad submitted a medico legal report dated 11.02.2011, which reads:
1. X-ray cervical spine
(i) Xray face
(ii) No evidence of bony fracture seen on cervical region.
(iii) Evidence of radio opaque shadow of metallic density seen on temporomandibular joint.
2. X-ray chest PA view.
No evidence of bony fracture seen part under view.”
(Emphasis by Court)
4. A reading of the FIR and the medico-legal report does not spare a shadow of doubt that the applicant shot the complainant-opposite party with a country-made pistol and the complainant received a gun shot wound to his neck. It is only by sheer luck that he survived the fatal attack. Learned counsel for the applicant says that since there are no chances of conviction and given the stance of the complainant-opposite party, who is willing to compromise, proceedings of the case ought to be quashed in view of the holding of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466. In Narinder Singh (Supra), the following guidelines have been laid down:
“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
