Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
3rd February 2022
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim And Ors. (Applicant)
State Of U.P. And Ors. (Respondent)
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that the mere incorporation of Section 307 IPC in the FIR and the charge-sheet, would not be a bar to quash case based on the compromise between the parties. The FIR was filed under section 307 of IPC however, it was proved before the Court that the injuries sustained by the parties did not amount of the offence under section 307 of IPC.
The primary issue faced by the High Court of Allahabad was:
1. The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2014 had laid the principles by which the High Courts would either accept the settlement and quash the proceedings or refuse to accept the settlement. As per Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court had inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings where the offence was not compoundable and the parties had reached the settlement amongst themselves.
2. The guiding factors as prescribed by the Narinder Singh case to quash the criminal proceedings after the parties had reached the settlement were:
a. To secure the ends of justice
b. Prevention of abuse of any process of the Court
3. This inherent power of the High Court was not to be exercised in case of heinous and serious offences and those offences which were alleged to had been committed under special statute. The offences under Section 307 of IPC, under which the FIR was lodged, would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences. However, due the mere mention of Section 307 of IPC in the FIR, the Court would not rest its decision upon it.
4. The High Court of Allahabad had to examine if there was sufficient evidence collected to prove the charge against the applicant under 307 of IPC. The High Court was open to inspect the nature of the injuries that were sustained and the weapons that were used. The copies of the respondents’ medico-legal examination report were filed along with the affidavit that had disclosed that they had suffered contusions and abrasions which the doctor had opined were simple in nature and did not amount to grievous injury rejecting the charge of committing offence under Section 307 of IPC.
5. In the Narinder Singh case, it was stated that the timings of settlement had played a crucial role. If the settlement had been reached immediately after the commission of the alleged offence and yet the matter was under investigation, the High Court would be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. This was because the investigation was still ongoing and even the charge sheet was not filed. Same went for the cases where the charges were framed and the evidence were in the stage of infancy.
The High Court of Allahabad was of the view that the continuance of the criminal proceedings of the case when the parties had already reached the compromise would have resulted in the persecution of the applicants leading to the failure of justice. The particular application under Section 482 of CrPC was allowed and the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the entire proceedings which had initiated from the FIR was quashed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement