Victim Has No Right To Drop Case Of Non-Compoundable Offence Of Serious & Heinous Nature: Allahabad High Court

The bench Justice Sameer Jain that such cases become a matter between the State and the accused and it is the duty of the State to ensure the law and order and to prosecute the offender in such cases.

The Case in brief

Essentially, the Court was hearing a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by the accused/applicants seeking to quash the entire proceeding of a criminal case registered against them under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC.

The applicants (14 in number) were accused of assaulting two persons with the intention to commit their murder. They allegedly opened fire from country-made pistols. In the incident, both victims sustained serious injuries.

After submission of the charge sheet on 26.8.2022, cognizance was taken and notices were issued to the applicants, however, during the pendency of the case before committal, applicants, the opposite party no. 2-informant and injured persons Inam and Danish compromised the matter and they executed a compromise.

Based on that compromise deed, applicants moved to the High Court seeking to quash proceedings pending before the trial court.

Court's observations

The primary question before the Court was - whether on the basis of compromise executed between the parties proceeding of such cases can be quashed.

The Court observed that the High Court can exercise its power vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of Section 320 Cr.P.C. to even quash the proceedings relate to non-compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties.

However, the Court further noted that the Apex Court has, in a catena od decisions, cautioned that the proceeding of serious and heinous offences which affect the society at large, should not be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

"...the law as it stands is that although this Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. even in non-compoundable offence and can quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties even in the cases of non-compoundable offences but while exercising its jurisdiction this Court must consider the fact that whether the proceeding relates to any serious and heinous offences and whether the crime in question has impact over the society. In cases of serious nature which affects the society at large this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties," the Court remarked as it took into account several judgments of the Supreme Court including the case of Daxaben vs State of Gujarat | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Further, the Court noted that the present case relates to the offence u/s 307 IPC in which as many as fourteen accused persons were involved and firearms weapons were used.

The Court also stressed that such offences have a serious impact on society and therefore, the trial should continue in the public interest and accused persons of such serious and heinous offences should be punished to deter others from committing similar offences.

Therefore, emphasising that the offences alleged to have been committed by applicants are crimes against society and it cannot be said that the present dispute is private in nature and does not affect society at large.

Consequently, the Court refused to allow the application and the same was dismissed.