18 Jan 2023 7:11 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday refused to quash proceedings against the accused persons in an attempt to murder case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the injured victims as it called the offence 'against the society'.The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the crime was against the society and not against the injured sons of the informant alone...
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday refused to quash proceedings against the accused persons in an attempt to murder case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the injured victims as it called the offence 'against the society'.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the crime was against the society and not against the injured sons of the informant alone and, therefore, the informant and his sons have no authority to pardon the accused persons.
"The acts allegedly committed by the petitioners (accused persons) involve firing gun shots in broad day light hitting two persons in their chests and such offence is a very serious offence and the material on record, namely, the medico-legal examination report of the injured persons and the statements recorded during investigation, fully support the FIR allegations," the Court remarked as it dismissed a Section 482 CrPC plea moved by the accused.
In its order, the High Court referred to several landmark rulings of the Apex Courts in the cases of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it was observed by the top court offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone.
In view of these rulings, the High Court observed that before exercising the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and the power to quash is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
Against this backdrop, the Court, while taking into account the fact of the case before it, noted that there was an old property dispute between the parties and the accused persons were known to the informant and his sons, and since the offence in question was against the society, therefore, the injured persons have no right to pardon the accused.
The case in brief
As per the FIR allegations, a land dispute was existing between the parties regarding which a case was pending. In spite of the pendency of the civil dispute, the accused persons started raising a wall.
Upon being objected by the informant and his sons, petitioner no. 2 fired a shot which hit the informant's son Sanjeev on his chest and petitioner no. 3 fired another shot which hit Umesh, another son of the informant, on his chest.
After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed in the case and the matter is presently pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional District and Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. Meanwhile, the accused persons and the injured victims and the informant entered into a compromise and they moved the Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the proceedings.
In its order, the Court noted that the medico-legal examination report of Sanjeev and Umesh, available on record, supported the FIR allegations and the statements of the informant and his injured sons Sanjeev and Umesh also supported the FIR allegations.
The Court also noted that the incident took place in broad daylight and there is no reason to doubt the identity of the persons who caused the incident. Consequently holding that the accused can't be pardoned by the injured victims, the Court refused to quash the proceedings and hence, the plea was dismissed.
Case title - Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Click Here To Read/Download Order