Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1808 (ALL)

Abhijeet Yadav v. State of U. P.

2023-07-27

RAJ BEER SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused the entire record. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 17.09.2022 and all consequential proceedings, including cognizance order dated 30.09.2022, passed by the A.C.J.M. Court No.10, Azamgarh in Case Crime No.64 of 2022, P.S. Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh, under Section 323, 504, 506, 427, 34, 171-F, 392 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, which is pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court No.10, Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has referred the first information report and material collected during investigation and it was submitted that no prime facie case is made out against applicants. Earlier the applicants have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.11708 of 2023 (Abhijeet Yadav and 5 others vs. State of U.P.) with same prayer for quashing of entire proceedings and summoning order and that application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2023 and the prayer for quashing of proceedings was refused. It is submitted that after disposal of said application, both the parties have compromised the matter and now the informant of the case does not want to proceed with the case and both the parties have filed an application for compromise, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this application. The alleged incident is private in nature between both the parties. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts, the impugned charge-sheet along with consequential proceedings and cognizance order may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not opposed the application and submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application and submitted that first application of applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking same prayer, has already been dismissed by this Court on merits and applicants were given liberty to move discharge application in accordance with law but instead of availing that remedy, the applicants have filed this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. making same prayer. It was submitted that alleged incident took place at the godown, where the Electronic Voting Machines (E.V.Ms.) pertaining to assembly Election of 2022 were lying and the counting of votes has to take place on the next day. Referring to first information report and facts of the matter, it was submitted that the act of the applicants cannot be termed private in nature and in fact they have tried to create interference in election process, where the E.V.Ms were lying, and counting has to take place on next day. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Perusal of record shows that earlier the applicants have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No.11708 of 2023, Abhijeet Yadav and 5 others vs. State of U.P.), with prayer to quash the impugned proceedings, including the charge-sheet and the summoning order, and that application was decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 03.04.2023, wherein, the prayer for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet, summoning order and proceedings was refused. However, it was directed that in case applicants file an application for discharge before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Now, this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking same relief. The ground taken in this second application is that both the parties have compromised the matter and an application for compromise has been annexed with the instant application. 8. Now, this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking same relief. The ground taken in this second application is that both the parties have compromised the matter and an application for compromise has been annexed with the instant application. 8. So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its earlier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 ; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285 ; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307 ; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179 ; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 ; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 ; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, ( 2019 5 SCC 570 , has held as under: "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/ or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.". 9. Keeping in view of the aforesaid position of law, in the instant case it appears that the alleged incident cannot termed as private in nature. 9. Keeping in view of the aforesaid position of law, in the instant case it appears that the alleged incident cannot termed as private in nature. The allegation in the first information report is that after the assembly elections of 2022, while the electronic voting machines were lying in F.C.I. go-down and the counting has to take place on 10.03.2022, on 09.03.2022 the officials of Ritesh enterprises, who were providing telephone related services on contract basis in election process, were taking broad-band and other articles including laptop and telephones in the godown but they were stopped by the applicants-accused persons and that when the informant and his companions told that they are engaged in election related work and they were going inside for their public duty, the applicants-accused and others assaulted them and they damaged their laptops and other articles and threatened to kill them and when police came, they ran away. Thus, it is apparent that the alleged offence has been committed at the place where electronic voting machines were lying and counting of votes has to take place on the next day and thereby, the alleged offence was committed in process of election of assembly. Thus, alleged incident cannot be termed as private between the parties. The persons engaged in election process were assaulted and threatened and their equipments were damaged. Quashing of proceedings of such case on the basis of compromise, would have serious impact on society. 10. Considering the nature of offence and the fact that an application for seeking same prayer has already been rejected on merits, this court is of the view that no case for quashing of proceedings is made out. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants-accused. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no substance and thus, liable to be dismissed. 11. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.