Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Quashing Of Prosecution-dispute Between Deemed University And Students-compromise Arrived At-proceedings Quashed.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Vinod B. Lal Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 08/26/2011 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 25652 OF 2009
CORAM : Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
Reserved

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 25652 OF 2009
V.B. Lal ............ Vs. ................ State Of U.P.
Connected With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 25653 OF 2009
Robin L. Prasad .......... Vs. ........ State Of U.P.
Connected With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 25654 OF 2009
Dr. (Mrs.) Ranu Prasad . Vs. ...State Of U.P And Others
Connected With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 25655 OF 2009
Dr. Derick M. Denis..........vs......State Of U.P. And Others
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3736 OF 2009
Dr.(Mrs.) Ranu Prasad...........................Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another......................Respondents.
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3737 OF 2009
Derick M.Denis......................................Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another.........................Respondents.
Connected With
Criminal Revision No. 3778 Of 2009
VINOD B.LAL.........................................REVISIONIST
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER...............RESPONDENTS
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3779 OF 2009
ROBIN L.PRASAD.................................REVISIONIST
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER...............RESPONDENTS.


Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

A Quadruple Of Applicants Vinod B. Lal (A1) Dr. Robin L. Prasad (A2), Dr. (Mrs.) Ranu Prasad (A3) And Dr. Derick M. Denis (A4) In All These Criminal Revisions And Criminal Misc. Applications Have Invoked The Revisional And Inherent Power Of This Court Praying Therein That Proceedings Of Criminal Case No. 7339 Of 2008 (State Of U.P. Vs. Robin L. Prasad And Others), Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 I.P.C. Relating To Crime No. 311 Of 2005, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Pending Before A.C.J.M., Room No. 2, Allahabad, And Their Summoning Order Dated 16.6.2009 Passed In Aforesaid Case Be Quashed. Ancillary Prayer Of Their's Is For Stay Of Trial Court Proceedings Pending Disposal Of Above Proceedings Before This Court. Since Reliefs Sought Is For Quashing Of Summoning Order And /or Proceedings Of The Same Session's Trial Consequently All The Above Cases Were Clubbed Together And Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Judgment.
All The Revisionists/ Applicants Are Officers Of Allahabad Agriculture Institute, A Deemed University, Under University Grant's Commission Act. A1 Is The Public Relation Officer, A2 Is Chief Proctor,A3 Is Chief Warden Girl's Hostel, And A4 Is Chief Warden, Men's Hostel. Unraveling Preceding Facts Which Generated This Cluster Of Revisions And 482 Cr.P.C. Applications, As Are Culled Out From The Pleadings Made In Various Revisions, 482 Applications And Affidavits Appended Therewith Coupled With Counter Affidavits By The Informant And Injured Person Are That Allahabad Agriculture Institute (hereinafter Referred To As AAI) Is A Christian Minority Institution, Associated With Allahabad University In-consonance With Section 38(3) Of Utter Pradesh State University's Act 1973 And The First Statute Of Allahabad University. University Grant's Commission, Exercising Powers Under Section 3 Of University Grant's Commission Act, 1956 Conferred On It (AAI) Status Of Deemed University With Effect From 15.3.2000 As Is Perceptible From Annexure No.1 To The 482 Applications.
An Article, Annexure No.2, To 482 Applications Was Published In A Weekly Magazine "Out Look" On 6.9.2005 Wherein It Was Mentioned That AAI Was Running Many Educational Courses Unauthorizedly Without Any Sanction From All India Council For Technical Education(AICTE) Which Publication Had The Potentiality Of Disturbing Serene Atmosphere Inside AAI Campus And, As Expected, Trouble Started Brewing Amongst Students Of AAI Which Ultimately Led To A Student's Unrest. Informant-respondent No. 2, Atul Singh, On The Strength Of Said Publication, Annexure No.1, Lodged A FIR, Annexure No. 3 , Of Crime No. 312 Of 2005 Against Applicant Dr. Rajendra B. Lal And Others,U/Ss 419, 420 I.P.C. At P.S. Naini On 31.8.2005. Challenge To The Said FIR Was Made By The Accused In Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9280 Of 2005,Dr. Rajendra B. Lal And Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Others, Before This Court, Which Writ Petition Was Disposed Off By A Division Bench, Vide Annexure No.8, Dated 16.9.2005, By Making Observations That Albeit Investigation Into The Crime Shall Go On But "looking To The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case The Arrest Of The Petitioners For The Offences Indicated Above Shall Remain Stayed Till The Submission Of The Report". Investigation Into The Said FIR Culminated In Submission Of A Charge Sheet On 25.1.2006, For Offences Under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 419, 420, 67, 467, 474 I.P.C., On The Basis Of Which Case No. 406 Of 2006 Was Registered Before A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, Allahabad In Which Charge Sheeted Accused Were Summoned. Predictably, Challenge To The Aforesaid Criminal Proceeding Was Made In Crl. Misc. Application No. 4242 Of 2006,Dr. Rajendra B. Lal And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Another Successfully As Aforesaid 482 Cr.P.C. Application Was Allowed And The Proceedings Of Aforesaid Case Relating To Crime No. 312 Of 2005 Was Quashed By This Court On 7.5.2008 Vide Annexure No. 14. It Has Not Been Brought To The Notice Of This Court That Any Challenge To The Said Order Was Made In Any Higher Forum And Hence It Is Understood That Quashing Of Proceeding Order Of Case No. 406 Of 2006, State Of U.P. Vs. Rajendra B. Lal And Others, Attained Finality.
Turning Towards Atmosphere Inside AAI Campus, Consequent To The Fomented Trouble, Because Of Publication Of The Above Referred To Article In The "out Look", Student's Demonstrations And Rioting Took Place Inside AAI Campus. To Contain Unlawful Activities, Destruction And Damage To The Movable And Immovable Properties, PAC Was Pressed Into Action By The Deemed University Authorities, Who Also Took An Unpleasant Decision Of Closure Of The Deemed University Sine A Die And Get Both Men And Women's Hostels Vacated. This Hostel Vacation Attempt Was Resisted And Demonstration Escalated. During Rioting Some Shooting Was Also Resorted To On Allahabad-Riva Highway. In Respect Of Said Incident, Informant-respondent No. 2, Atul Singh Lodged FIR Of Crime No. 311 Of 2008, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 I.P.C. And 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, At P.S. Naini, District Allahabad On 31.8.2005 Vide Annexure No. 15 Mentioning Date And Time Of The Incident As 30.8.2005 At 7 P.m. Applicants Herein Were Arraigned As Accused In That FIR.
Different Accused Therefore Approached This Court By Filing Various Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Being CMWP No. 11006 Of 2005, Vinod B. Lal Vs State Of U.P. And Others, CMWP No.11007 Of 2005, Robin L. Prasad Vs State Of U.P. And Others, CMWP No. 9905 Of 2005, Dr. (Mrs) Ranu Prasad VS State Of U.P. And Others And CMWP No. 10465 Of 2005, Derick M. Denis VS State Of U.P. And Others And Obtained Some Interim Reliefs From This Court.
During Course Of Investigation Into Crime No. 311 Of 2005, Statements Of Informant And Injured Persons Namely Ashish Kumar Gupta, Mukesh Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tiwari And Other Witnesses Were Penned Down, Site Plan Was Sketched And Inspection Note Was Inked. Perusal Of These Documents Reveals That Firing Was Resorted To On National Highway On Allahabad - Riva Road, Outside Precinct Of AAI. Copy Of Aforesaid Investigatory Statements Along With Site Plan And Inspection Note Are Annexure Nos. 19 To 23 To 482 Applications. After Expressing Inability To Record Statements Of Other Injured Persons Vide Annexure No. 24 Vide Parcha Dated 3.9.2005, I.O. Wrapped Up The Investigation By Laying Down A Charge Sheet In Court Against The Applicants For Offences Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 I.P.C. And 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act On 21.11.2005 Vide Annexure No. 18.
A.C.J.M., Room No. 5, Allahabad Took Cognizance Of The Offences On 31.1.2006 Vide Annexure No. 25 To 482 Applications. It Transpires That Subsequent To The Laying Down Of Charge Sheet, Informant-respondent No. 2 Atul Singh Moved An Application Signed By Him, Annexure No. 26, Supported With His Affidavit, Annexure No. 27, On 12.4.2007, Before SSP, Allahabad Testifying Therein That He Had Registered The FIR At The Provoking Of Some Political Leaders And Some Of Deemed University Employees Of Rival Faction. In His Affidavit He Had Testified That He Was Forced To Sign On Some Blank Papers By Some Of The Staff Of Deemed University Of Rival Factions. Other Injured Witnesses Mukesh Kumar Singh, Sanjai Kumar Singh, Kunal Bhargava, And Other Fact Witness Shown In The Charge Sheet Ashish Kumar Gupta, Also Filed Their Affidavits Before SSP, Allahabad Stepping On Informant's Foot Prints And Following Suit, The Same Day 12.4.2007 Vide Annexure No. 29 To 32 Testifying There Under That They Were Forcibly Compelled To Put Their Signatures On Some Blank Papers By The I.O. It Transpires That On The Basis Of Aforementioned Application And Affidavits Filed By Informant And Injured Witnesses, That SSP Allahabad, Vide Annexure No. 28, Dated 16.4.2007, Directed In-charge Inspector, P.S. Naini, Allahabad To Conduct Further Investigation Into The Matter U/S 173(8) Of The Code And For That Purposes Dispatched Him All The Aforesaid Affidavits Filed Before Him. He Also Directed That If Need Be 164 Cr.P.C. Statements Of Witnesses Be Also Got Recorded. In Compliance With Said Direction Issued By SSP, An Application Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Was Moved By The I.O. Before ACJM, Allahabad Seeking His Permission For Further Investigation And Consequently A.C.J.M. Room No. 2, Allahabad, Accorded Such Permission On 28.4.2007 Vide Annexure No. 33. Pursuant To The Said Permission Further Investigation Was Conducted And This Time I.O. Submitted A Final Report (F.R.) On 28.4.2007 Mentioning Therein That The Institution (AAI) Is Running Peacefully And From Further Investigation, Implication Of The Applicants Who Are University Authorities And Security Guards Were Found To Be False. After Receipt Of FR A Compromise Was Also Drawn Between The Informant, The Injured And Accused And Therefore, Observing Natural Course Of Human Conduct, A Joint FR Acceptance Application Was Tendered Before A.C.J.M., Court No. 2 , Allahabad, On 2.7.2007, Vide Annexure No. 34, To Accept The FR And Drop The Proceedings. However Ld. ACJM Opted For Another Course And Summoned The Applicants To Face Trial On 14.5.2009, Vide Annexure No. 35 Fixing 16.6.2009 For Their Appearance In Court. Accused Applicants How Ever Did Not Appear In Court On The Date So Fixed And Hence On That Date Ld. ACJM Fixed 5.8.2009 For Their Appearance.
Aggrieved By The Summoning Order Four Accused Challenged It In Various Criminal Revisions Which Are Being Decided By This Order. In Those Revisions A Counter Affidavits Was Called For And Till Next Date Of Listing Proceedings Of Trial Court Was Stayed. It Was At This Stage That Applicants Were Advised To Challenge Entire Trial Court Proceedings And Seek It's Quashing To Secure Ends Of Justice And Curb Their Harassment That Revisionists Filed 482 Applications And Prayed That It Be Clubbed With Their Revisions And Be Decided Together.
In All These 482 Cr.P.C. Applications, Informant Atul Singh And Injured Chandan Singh Have Filed Their Affidavits Through Their Respective Counsel Sri Imran Ullah, Rajesh Kumar Singh And Ankur Sharma, Which Were Taken On Record. As Requested And In Joint Agreement With Both The Sides All The Above Criminal Revisions And 482 Applications Were Clubbed Together And Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.
In The Backdrop Of Above Narrated Facts, I Have Heard Sri S.N. Verma, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Sri Arvind Verma, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Counsel, For All The Accused Applicants, Sri Imran Ullah, Counsel For The Informant Respondent No. 2, Sri Ankur Sharma, Counsel For Injured And Sri K.N. Vajpayee, Learned AGA And Have Perused The Materials On Record And The Affidavits Filed By Both The Contesting Sides.
It Is Submitted By Accused Counsel That The Incident Occurred Because Of Publication Of An Article In The Magazine "out Look" That AAI Is Running Courses Without Sanction Of AICTE. The Said Publication Had Generated Genuine Serious Apprehensions In The Minds Of The Students Pursuing Those Courses Regarding Their Bleak Future Career Which Was Thought By Them To Be Looming Large In The Darkness. It Was This Fear Psychosis And Uncertainty Of Future Life That Atmosphere Inside Deemed University Campus Amongst Students Became So Much Surcharged That They Resorted To Violence And Rioting Without Any Orchestrated Preplan And Premeditation. In Fact Protest Was Launched Because The Authorities Were Endeavouring To Get The Hostels Vacated. It Was Submitted That Entire Episode Occurred Because Of Mob Psychology And When Truth About The Contents Of Published Article Was Unraveled And Came To Be Known To The Students And Their Misconceptions In That Respect Were Clarified, Then All The Turmoil Died Down And Everything Subsided Bringing Peace And Harmony Inside The Campus. Students Also Realized That Their Sudden And Spontaneous Outburst Was Unwarranted And Without Proper Verification Of Facts They Had Resorted To Rioting And Consequently, No Sooner They Realized Their Mistakes And Came To Know About Police Charge Sheet Against The Authorities And Security Personnel's That They, Voluntarily, Themselves Moved Application And Affidavits Before SSP, Allahabad With The Prayer That The FIR Was Lodged Under Some Misconceptions And Misgivings At The Instigation Of Unwarranted Elements And, Therefore, The Prosecution Of The Charge Sheeted Accused Should Be Withdrawn And /or Curbed. In Support Of Their Desired Intention They Even Tendered Their Sworn Affidavits As Well. It Was At The Behest Of The Informant And The Injured That SSP, Allahabad Had Ordered For Further Investigation Even Prior To The Summoning Order Of The Applicants By A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Allahabad, Was Passed. Further Investigation, Ultimately Culminated In Submission Of F.R. Exonerating The Applicants From All The Charges Leveled Against Them. It Was Contiguously Argued That Instead Of Summoning The Accused Straightway ACJM Should Have Noticed The Informant And After Hearing Him Should Have Accepted The FR Submitted By The I.O. It Was Contended That ACJM Failed To Attach Due Significance To Further Investigation And Facts Unearthed Thereunder. It Was Forcefully Contended That When Those Very Witnesses, Who Had To Depose During The Trial Against The Applicants, Entered Into A Compromise And Resiled From Their 161 Statements And Expressed Their Intention Not To Prosecute The Applicants, Then No Useful Purpose Would Have Been Served To Allow The Prosecution To Proceed With Futile Exercise Of Arduous Trial Procedure As That Would Have Amounted To Wastage Of Time Of The Court, Which Could Have Been Utilized In Some More Meaningful Purpose. According To The Counsel To Save The Wastage Of Time Of The Court, It Would Have Been Justified For The Magistrate To Accept The F.R. By Allowing Application Annexure No. 34 Tendered Before Him Signed By All The Accused, Informant And The Injured. The Contention Was Further Buttressed By Contending That Deemed University Is Running Peacefully And Career Of The Students Are Being Looked After Well And Therefore Also Interest Of Justice Would Have Been Served Best By Dissuading Such A Prosecution To Go On Which Again Would Have Disturbed Tranquility Inside It's Campus. It Was Suggested That AAI Was Declared To Be Premier And Renowned Institute Of The Country By The Apex Court In The Case Of St. Stephen's College Vs. University Of Delhi And Others; 1992 (1) SCC 558 (page 574) And, Therefore, ACJM Should Have Acted Pro-actively By Nipping A Pre-determined Prosecution Into Bud. Learned Counsel Submitted That It Is A Fit Case Where The Power Of This Court Should Be Exercised To Save The Harassment Of The Parties From Going Through Arduous Tardy And Lethargic Process Of Criminal Trial And The Parties Be Allowed To Pursue Their Own Courses Of Actions, Especially When It Is A Dispute Between Teachers And Students And Involve An Educational Institution. It Was Next Submitted That It Is In The Interest Of Institution As Well As The Students That FR Filed By The Police Be Taken Cognizance Of And The Prosecution Of The Applicants Be Quashed At Its Inception. Learned Counsel Further Contended That But For Section 147/324/307 I.P.C. Rest Of The Offences Mentioned In The Charge Sheeted Are Compoundable And So Far As Section 147/307 I.P.C. Are Concerned, Entire Material Contained In The Case Diary Lacks Ingredients Thereof To Prosecute The Applicants. It Was Submitted That Firing Was Resorted To At The Highway By Some Miscreants And, Therefore, Taking The Entire Investigatory Material Into Consideration, Specially The Affidavits Which Forms The Part Of The Case Diary, The Offence Will Not Travel Beyond The Purview Of Section 324 I.P.C. It Was Additionally Submitted That Earlier Prosecution Launched Against The Applicants Had Already Been Quashed By This Court And The Said Order Has Attained Finality. During The Course Of The Argument Much Of The Emphasis Was Harped On The Fact That AAI Was Not Running Any Course Without Legal Sanction And Permissibility And, Therefore, The Charge That It Was Imparting Education Without AICTE Permission Was Factually Incorrect. In Support Of The Said Contention, Attention Was Drawn To The Pleadings Made In Paragraph Nos. 9 To 25 Of 482 Cr.P.C. Applications, Which For The Sake Of Brevity Are Not Being Reproduced As That Exercise Seems To Be In Vain In View Of Succeeding Paragraphs Of This Judgment. Learned Counsel Relied Upon Various Decisions Of The Apex Court In Support Of Their Contentions Which Are B.S. Joshi Vs. State Of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 675, Rahul Agrawal Vs. Rakesh Jain, AIR 2005 SC 910, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State Of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582, Jagdish Chanana Vs. State Of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 704, Manoj Sharma Vs. State And Others (2008) 16 SCC 1, Manoj Vs. State Of M.P. AIR 2009 SC 22, Satya Narayan Vs. State Of U.P. 2010 (3) ADJ 420 And Jitendra Pal Vs. State Of U.P. 2010 (70) ACC Page 699. Concluding The Submissions, It Was Submitted That The Prayer Made In Opening Paragraph Of This Judgment Be Accepted And Prosecution Of The Applicants In Criminal Case No.7339 Of 2008 (State Of U.P. Vs. Robin L. Prasad And Others), Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 I.P.C. Relating To Crime No. 311 Of 2005, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Pending Before A.C.J.M., Room No. 2, Allahabad, Along With Impugned Summoning Order Be Quashed.
Sri Imran Ullah, Counsel For The Informant-respondent No. 2 As Well As Sri Ankur Sharma Advocate, Counsel For The Injured Chandan Singh Also Supported The Submissions Raised By Counsel For The Applicants And Prayed That Their Clients Are Not Inclined To Enter Into The Witness Box And Testify Against The Accused Applicants As They Have Already Compromised The Offences After Coming To Know Of The Real Facts And, Therefore, The Prayer Of The Applicants Accused Be Allowed And Their Prosecution Be Quashed. They Submitted That They Have Not Stated The Facts Recorded By The I.O. And In Fact The FIR Was Lodged Under Some Misconception At The Beguiling Of Some Unscrupulous Persons Who Never Wanted The Institution To Run Smoothly. Learned Counsels Submitted That Their Clients Have Expressed Their Desire Against Continuation Of Prosecution Against The Applicants And Contest The Case. Counsel Submissions Were Categorically And Conspicuously Clear That Neither The Informant Nor The Injured Are Interested In Giving Any Evidence Against The Accused Persons And, Therefore, They Supported The Prayer Made By The Applicants In 482 Cr.P.C. Applications And Revisions.
Learned AGA Also Expressed His Consent As He Fairly Stated That If The Witnesses Are Not Ready To Testify And Give Evidences Then Allowing The Prosecution To Proceed Will Only Be Utterly Futile Exercise And Will Only Consume Time Of The Court Which Is Already Saddled With Enormous Load Of Work And Looking To The Entire Conspectus Of Background Facts, Prosecution Should Be Allowed To Culminate By Quashing Of Proceedings Instead Of Time Of The Court Be Wasted In Observing Trial Procedure In A Case Where Outcome Is Pre-determined. He Submits That Ex Debito Justice Be Not Defeated Merely On Technicalities.
I Have Considered The Arguments Raised By Either Contesting Sides And Have Perused Entire Material On Record. Before Picking Up Summations Of Raised Submissions A Quick Recapitulation Of Some Of The Legal Precedents Involving Raised Questions Are Penned Down.
Background Facts Already Sketched Above In The Preceding Paragraphs Reveal That Because Of An Article Published In A Magazine "Outlook" Atmosphere Inside AAI Campus Became Surcharged As The Students Under Taking Various Career Courses Became Apprehensive For Their Future Career After Putting Money And Years, Without Pondering Over The Correct Facts And Legal Status Of Courses Run By AAI And Imparted Degrees. This Led To An Outburst And The Educational Campus Swiftly Was Engulfed With Frenzied Mob Psychology And The Trouble Ignited. Without Any Pre Meditation Unlawful Assembly Came Into Being And Rioting Took Place. There Was No Pre Meditation Nor Any Conspiracy Was Hatched Up For Such An Unlawful Assembly. It All Happened Because Of Apprehensive Uncertainty Regarding Future Career By The Students. Initially A FIR Under Section 419,420 IPC Was Lodged Against The Management Of The AAI But That Did Not Satiate The Situation And Doused The Temper And Therefore An Organized Demonstration Soon Took An Ugly Character Of Rioting Which Had All It's Traits Of Damaging And Destruction Of Immovable And Movable Properties. To Control Damage By Frenzied Mob And Protect And Restrict Destruction Of It's Properties By Rampaging, Security Guards And Other Management Staff Took An Unpleasant Decision Of Calling PAC And Pressed It Into Action And Get The Hostel's Vacated. This Further Aggravated The Situation, As Two Arch Rivals - Students And Police, Then Tried To Knock Out Each Other. It Was During This See Saw Battle Of Having An Edge Over The Other That Some Firing Was Made. This Obviously Was An Act To Douse The Escalated Trouble And Desist From Fomenting Further Trouble And Pacify The Aggravated Situation. No Body Harbingered Intention To Commit Murder Nor Any Specific Person Was Targeted. Firing Was Resorted To Only With Clandestine Intention Of Calming The Worsen Situation Without Any Intention To Gain An Edge Over Rival Side. This Was A Sudden Impulsive Act Without Any Intention To Commit Murder And Therefore It Is Difficult To Conclude That In Such Fact Situation Offence Under Section 307 IPC Will Be Made Out. What Can Be Opined With Certain Amount Of Certainty Is That, Under Facts And Circumstances Stated By The Prosecution, Only An Offence Under Section 324 IPC Was Committed As There Was Total Absence Of Any Intention To Commit Murder Of Any Individual Nor Firing Was Targeted Against Particular Individual. Besides, Injuries Sustained By The Injured Were Found To Be Simple In Nature And Not Grievous Or Dangerous To Life. It Is Therefore Difficult To Conclude That Any Of The Applicants Committed Offence Under Section 307 IPC And Hence Their Summoning Order For That Crime Of Attempt To Murder U/S 307 IPC Is Unsustainable. In Respect Of Absence Of Ingredients Of Offence U/S 307 IPC Being Disclosed Following Decisions Of The Apex Court Can Be Had Which Lend Support To Above View:-
In State Of UP. Versus Gajadhar Singh : AIR 2009 SC 1935 It Has Been Observed By The Apex Court As Under :-
"6. The Evidence On Record Clearly Established That The Pistol Was Concealed And Was Not Visible To Anyone. The High Court Rightly Noted That The Evidence Adduced By The Prosecution Did Not Establish That Remaining Accused Persons Had Any Knowledge That Gajadhar Was Carrying A Country Made Pistol Or That He Would Go To Shoot The Deceased. The Testimony Of PW-2 Shows That Janardan Was Initially Asking The Voters Not To Caste Vote For Ramakant Yadav But To Vote For His Candidate And Subsequently He Had Resorted To Rowdism In Order To Disturb The Voting Process So That Ramakant Yadav May Not Win The Election And That Simple Injuries Were Caused By Blunt Weapon To Three Persons. Therefore, As Rightly Observed By The High Court The Common Object Of The Assembly Was Not To Commit The Murder Of Chandra Bhan Singh And It Was The Solitary Act Of Gajadhar. PW-2 Had Also Stated That He Had Not Seen The Lathis Or Country Made Pistol In The Hands Of Any Of The Accused Persons At The Time When Janardan Was Disturbing The Voters And Was Asking Them Not To Caste Vote In Favour Of Ramakant Yadav. PW-4 I.e. Constable On Duty Had Also Stated That There Was Fight Between The Parties Regarding Disturbance In Voting."
In Durgo Bai Versus State Of Punjab: AIR 2004 SC 4170 It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Under :-
"15. As Regards The Charge Under Section 307, IPC Against The Second Appellant, The Evidence Of PWs 1 And 2 Appears To Be Vague And Scanty And It Is Not Safe To Convict Him On The Basis Of This Evidence. Apart From The Fact That The Lead/empties Were Not Recovered Or Attempted To Be Recovered, There Is No Definite Evidence That The Accused Targeted The Members Of The Patrolling Party. The Direction In Which The Shot From The Revolver Travelled And The Details Relating To Other Logistics Are Not Forthcoming. On The Strength Of The Evidence Of PWs 1 And 2 It Can Only Be Said That They Heard The Sound Of Firing And Then They Retaliated. There Was Every Possibility Of The Accused Firing A Shot Aimlessly To Scare Away Those Who Challenged Him From A Distance. Hence He Is Acquitted Of The Charge Under Section 307, IPC. Of Course, His Acquittal For The Offence Under Section 307 Does Not Make Any Difference As Regards The Sentence Which The Appellant Has Been Subjected To Under The NDPS Act."

In Mahesh Chand Versus State Of Rajasthan: AIR 1988 SC 2111 It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Under :-
"2. The Accused Were Acquitted By The Trial Court, But They Were Convicted By The High Court For The Offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. This Offence Is Not Compoundable Under Law. The Parties, However. Want To Treat It A Special Case, In View Of The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Case. It Is Said And Indeed Not Disputed That One Of The Accused Is A Lawyer Practising In The Lower Court. There Was A Counter Case Arising Out Of The Same Transaction. It Is Said That This Case Has Already Been Compromised. The Decision Of This Court In Suresh Babu V. State Of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 2 JT 361, Has Been Also Referred To In Support Of The Plea For Permission To Compound The Offence.
3.We Gave Our Anxious Consideration To The Case And Also The Plea Put Forward For Seeking Permission To Compound The Offence. After Examining The Nature Of The Case And The Circumstances Under Which The Offence Was Committed, It May Be Proper That The Trial Court Shall Permit Them To Compound The Offence."

In Hari Kishan And State Of Haryana V. Sukhbir Singh:AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 2127 : It Has Been Observed By The Apex Court As Under :-
"7. On The First Question As To Acquittal Of The Accused Under S. 307/149, IPC, Some Significant Aspects May Be Borne In Mind. Under S. 307, IPC What The Court Has To See Is, Whether The Act Irrespective Of Its Result, Was Done With The Intention Or Knowledge And Under Circumstances Mentioned In That Section. The Intention Or Knowledge Of The Accused Must Be Such As Is Necessary (to) Constitute Murder. Without This Ingredient Being Established, There Can Be No Offence Of "attempt To Murder". Under S. 307 The Intention Precedes The Act Attributed To Accused. Therefore, The Intention Is To Be Gathered From All Circumstances, And Not Merely From The Consequences That Ensue. The Nature Of The Weapon Used, Manner In Which It Is Used, Motive For The Crime, Severity Of The Blow, The Part Of The Body Where The Injury Is Inflicted Are Some Of The Factors That May Be Taken Into Consideration To Determine The Intention.
In This Case, Two Parties In The Course Of A Fight Inflicted On Each Other Injuries Both Serious And Minor. The Accused Though Armed With Ballam Never Used The Sharp Edge Of It. They Used Only The Blunt Side Of It Despite They Being Attacked By The Other Side. They Suffered Injuries But Were Not Provoked Or Tempted To Use The Cutting Edge Of The Weapon. It Is Very Very Significant. It Seems To Us That They Had No Intention To Commit Murder. They Had No Motive Either. The Fight As The High Court Has Observed, Might Have Been A Sudden Flare Up. Where The Fight Is Accidental Owing To A Sudden Quarrel, The Conviction Under S. 307 Is Generally Not Called For. We, Therefore, See No Reason To Disturb The Acquittal Of Accused Under S. 307, IPC"
(Emphasis Supplied)

From The Above Expressed Views It Can Safely Be Concluded That Summoning Of The Applicants For The Charge U/S 307 IPC Cannot Be Upheld.
Turning Now Towards Compounding Aspect As Was Argued By Both The Sides I Am Of The View That On The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case It Will Be Useful To Secure Ends Of Justice Craved By Both The Parties As Directing The Teacher And The Taught To Litigate Over An Issue Which They Have Compounded Outside The Court And Do Not Want To Contest Will Be An Idle Exercise. It Will Only Bring Bickering Amongst Them And Will Not Serve Any Purpose. Students, By Now, Must Have Settled In Their Lives And Atmosphere In The Campus Has Regained It's Teaching Atmosphere. In The Peculiar Facts And Circumstances Of The Case What Will Be The Use To Allow Such A Prosecution To Proceed? It Will Only Harass The Witnesses And The Accused And Will Be Colossal Wastage Of Court's Time And Energy. Recapitulated At This Point Is That It Was The Informant And The Injured Who All Had Moved To The SSP, Allahabad For Further Investigation And Dropping Of The Matter. It Was At Their Behest That Further Investigation Was Under Taken Which Ultimately Culminated In Submission Of FR. Added To This, In Instant Applications Informant Atul Singh And Injured Chandan Singh Have Filed Their Affidavits Contents Of Which Are Reproduced Below:-


"AFFIDAVIT
of
Atul Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Son Of Sri C.D. Singh, Resident Of 28-C/8-A, Sarvodaya Nagar, Allahpur, Police Station - George Town, Allahabad.
In
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 25655 OF 2009
(Under Section 482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure)
ALLAHABAD
Derick M. Denis .......... ...... Applicant
versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another ...... Opposite Parties

Affidavit Of Atul Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Son Of Sri C.D. Singh, Resident Of 28-C/8-A, Sarvodaya Nagar, Allahpur, Police Station - George Town, Allahabad.
- DEPONENT
I, The Above-named Deponent, Do Hereby Solemnly Affirm And State As Under :
1. That The Deponent Is Complainant In The Present Case And Is Conversant With The Facts Deposed To Below.
2. That On 31-08-2005 The Deponent, At The Instance Of Some Political Leaders Of The Then Ruling Samajwadi Party As Also Prof. (Dr.) Mathew Prasad And Mr. Issac Frank, Staff Of The Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University, And One Sri Sadanand Rai, Who Wanted To Create Chaos In The University Campus For Their Personal Gains, Lodged A First Information Report Against (i) Sri Robin L. Prasad, (ii) Sri Derick M. Denis, (iii) Sri Vinod B. Lal And (iv) Smt. Ranu Prasad, Alleging That At Their Instance The Security Guards Of The University Fired On The Students And Caned Them Brutally.
3. That On The Basis Of Aforesaid First Information Report, The Police Registered Case Crime No. 311 Of 2005, State Versus Robin L. Prasad And Others Against The Revisionist And 3 Other Persons Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 And 323 Of The Indian Penal Code, Read With Section 7 Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act.
4. That Subsequently The Investigating Officer Under Political Influence, Submitted A Charge-Sheet In The Matter On 25-01-2006, Upon Which The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad Took Cognizance On 31-01-2006.
5. That The Security Guards Of The University Fired In Air, Inside The Campus, Only With A View To Prevent The Mob From Entering The University Premises And Save The Property Of University From Arson / Loot.
6. That To The Best Of Deponent's Knowledge None Of The Student Received Any Injury On Account Of Alleged Firing By The Guards Inside The Campus. In Fact, The Students Were Injured On Rewa Road In Firing By Some Miscreant Within The Mob.
7. That, Accordingly, The Deponent And Some Of The Injured Moved An Application Before The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Along With Their Affidavits Specifically Stating That Prof. (Dr.) Mathew Prasad, Mr. Issac Frank And Political Leaders Are Pressurizing Them To Give False Evidence In The Matter.
8. That On The Application Of The Deponent And Injured The Senior Superintendent Of Police Ordered For Further Investigation.
9. That, Thereafter, The Prosecution Applied To The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad For Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, Which Was Accepted By The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate And Further Investigation In The Matter Was Ordered.
10. That After Further Investigation The Investigating Officer Submitted Final Report In The Matter That (I) Sri Robin L. Prasad, (ii) Sri Derick M. Denis, (iii) Sri Vinod B. Lal And (iv) Smt. Ranu Prasad Are Not Involved In The Crime And That The Students Are Studying In The University In A Peaceful Atmosphere.
11. That The Deponent Has Completed His Studies In The University And He Has Got No Grievance / Complaint Against The Accused.
12. That, Accordingly, The Deponent And The Injured Moved An Application Before The Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad That They Do Not Want To Contest The Matter In The Larger Interest Of The Students And The Institution. True-copy Of The Compromise Application Filed By The Deponent And The Injured Before The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate On 02-07-2007 Is Being Filed As ANNEXURE "1" To This Affidavit.
13. That Relations Between Deponent And The Persons Named As Accused In The First Information Report Have Always Been Quite Cordial And The Deponent Has Great Respect For All Of Them, Who Are Being Harassed For No Fault On Their Part.
14. That The Deponent Is Filing This Affidavit Out Of His Own Free Will And Without Any Pressure Or Fear From Any One. It Is An Act Of His Own Volition Free From Any Inducement.
15. That It Is Expedient In The Ends Of Justice That The Aforesaid Facts Be Placed On Record And The Hon'ble Court Be Pleased To Consider The Aforesaid Facts While Deciding The Matter.

I, Atul Singh, The Deponent Above-named, Do Hereby Verify On Oath That The Contents Of Paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 And 14 Of This Affidavit Are True To My Personal Knowledge, While Those In Paragraph 15 Are Based On Information Received In The Shape Of Legal Advice, Which I Believe To Be True. No Part Of This Affidavit Is False And Nothing Considered Material Has Been Concealed Herein. So Help Me God.
(DEPONENT)
AFFIDAVIT
of
Chandan Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Son Of Sri Nagendra Narain Singh, Resident Of Village - Hussainpur, Police Station - Sikandarpur, District - Ballia.-------------------------INJURED
in
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.25655 OF 2009
(Under Section 482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure)
DISTRICT : ALLAHABAD
Derick M. Denis, Aged About 39 Years, Son Of Dr. Remmy Yohan Denis, Chief Warden, Men's Hostel, Allahabad Agricultural Institute- Deemed University, Post Office - Agriculture Institute, Tehsil - Karchhana, Police Station - Naini, District - Allahabad.
------- (Accused)- APPLICANT
versus
1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh
2. Atul Singh, Son Of Sri C.D. Singh, Student, Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University, Post Office - Agriculture Institute, Tehsil - Karchhana, Police Station - Naini, District - Allahabad.

- (Complainant)- OPPOSITE PARTIES
Affidavit Of Chandan Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Son Of Sri Nagendra Narain Singh, Resident Of Village - Hussainpur, Police Station - Sikandarpur, District- Ballia.

(DEPONENT)
I, The Above-named Deponent, Do Hereby Solemnly Affirm And State On Oath As Under :-

1. That The Deponent Is A Former Student Of Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University And Was Injured In The Firing On Rewa Road On 30-08-2005. The Deponent Is Conversant With The Facts Deposed To Below.

2. That On 31.08.2005 The Complainant, Sri Atul Singh, At The Instance Of Some Political Leaders Of The Then Ruling Samajwadi Party As Also Prof. (Dr.) Mathew Prasad And Mr. Issac Frank, Staff Of The Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University, Who Wanted To Create Chaos In The University Campus For Their Personal Gains, Lodged A First Information Report, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 And 323 Of The Indian Penal Code, Against (i) Sri Robin L. Prasad, (ii) Sri Derick M. Denis, (iii) Sri Vinod B. Lal And (iv) Smt. Ranu Prasad, Alleging That On Instructions Of These Four Persons The Security Guards Of Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University Brutally Fired And Canned The Students In The Evening Of 30-08-2005, To Get The Campus Vacated.

3. That Subsequently The Investigating Officer Under Political Influence, Submitted A Charge-Sheet In The Matter On 25-01-2006, Upon Which The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad Took Cognizance On 31-01-2006.

4. That, In Fact, The Security Guards Of The University Fired In Air Only To Prevent The Mob From Entering The University Premises With A View To Save The Property Of University.

5. That None Of The Students Received Any Injury On Account Of Alleged Firing By The Guards Inside The Campus.

6. That The Deponent Was Injured On Rewa Road On Account Of Firing By Some Miscreant From The Mob, On Rewa Road.

7. That, Accordingly, The Complainant And Some Of The Injured Moved An Application Before The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Along With Their Affidavits Specifically Stating The Prof. (Dr.) Mathew Prasad, Mr. Issac Frank And Some Political Leaders Are Pressurizing Them To Give False Evidence In The Matter.

8. That On The Application Moved By The Complainant And Some Of The Injured, The Senior Superintendent Of Police Ordered For Further Investigation.

9. That, Thereafter, The Prosecution Moved An Application Section 173(8) Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure Before The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate For Further Investigation.

10 That On The Said Application The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ordered For Further Investigation And The Matter Was Further Investigated.
11. That After Further Investigation, The Investigating Officer Submitted Final Report In The Matter That No Offence Is Made Out Against (i) Sri Robin L. Prasad, (ii) Sri Derick M. Denis, (iii) Sri Vinod B. Lal And (iv) Smt. Ranu Prasad And That The Students Are Studying In The University In A Peaceful Atmosphere.

12. That The Deponent Has Completed His Studies In The University And He Has Got No Grievance / Complaint Against The Accused.

13. That, Accordingly, The Complainant And Some Of The Injured Moved An Application Before The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad That They Do Not Want To Contest The Matter In The Larger Interest Of The Students And The Institution.

14. That The Deponent Could Not Sign The Compromise As He Was Not Present In Allahabad On The Date The Compromise Was Filed.

15. That Relations Between Deponent And (i) Sri Robin L. Prasad, (ii) Sri Derick M. Denis, (iii) Sri Vinod B. Lal And (iv) Smt. Ranu Prasad Have Always Been Quite Cordial And The Deponent Has Great Respect For All Of Them. These Persons Are Being Harassed For No Fault On Their Part.

16. That The Deponent Is Filing This Affidavit Out Of His Own Free Will And Without Any Pressure Or Fear From Any One. It Is An Act Of His Own Volition Free From Any Inducement.

17. That It Is Expedient In The Ends Of Justice That The Hon'ble Court Be Pleased To Consider The Aforesaid Facts While Deciding The Matter.
I, Chandan Singh, The Deponent Above-named, Do Hereby Verify On Oath That The Contents Of Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 And 16 Of This Affidavit Are True To May Personal Knowledge, While Those In Paragraphs 17 Are Based On Information Received In The Shape Of Legal Advice, Which I Believe To Be True. No Part Of This Affidavit Is False And Nothing Considered Material Has Been Concealed Herein. So Help Me God.
(DEPONENT)

Thus As On Date Neither Of The Parties Are Interested In Contesting The Trial And They Want The Case To Be Dropped. Their Prayer Seems Foster Cause Of Justice And Is In The Best Interest Of Both, The Students As Well As The Institution. No Doubt Section 147/324//307 IPC Are None Compoundable U/S 320 Cr.P.C. In State Of U.P. But That Should Not Be An Un-scalable Impediment In The Way Of This Court To Secure Ends Of Justice By Exercising It's Inherent Powers. Section 482 Cr.P.C. Starts With A Non Obstante Clause By Providing "Nothing In This Code Shall Be Deemed To Limit Or Affect The Inherent Powers Of The High Court To Make Such Orders As May Be Necessary ......" And Hence Section 320 Cr.P.C. Does Not Stand In The Way Of This Court To Do Ex- Debito Justice Or Secure Ends Of Justice By Wielding Such Inherent Power. Speaking Legally, Inherent Power Has Been Preserved With This Court To Remedy Un-remediable Situations Like The Present One To Do Complete Justice In Between The Parties. Extra Ordinary Situations Demands Extra Ordinary Remedies/ Solutions And When It Fosters Complete Justice In Between Litigating Parties According To Their Desire It Should Normally Be Adhered To. In My This View I Draw Support From Some Of The Decisions By The Apex Court Referred To Herein Below.
In Mahesh Chand Versus State Of Rajasthan: AIR 1988 SC 2111 It Has Been Held As Under:-
"2. The Accused Were Acquitted By The Trial Court, But They Were Convicted By The High Court For The Offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. This Offence Is Not Compoundable Under Law. The Parties, However. Want To Treat It A Special Case, In View Of The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Case. It Is Said And Indeed Not Disputed That One Of The Accused Is A Lawyer Practising In The Lower Court. There Was A Counter Case Arising Out Of The Same Transaction. It Is Said That This Case Has Already Been Compromised. The Decision Of This Court In Suresh Babu V. State Of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 2 JT 361, Has Been Also Referred To In Support Of The Plea For Permission To Compound The Offence.
2.We Gave Our Anxious Consideration To The Case And Also The Plea Put Forward For Seeking Permission To Compound The Offence. After Examining The Nature Of The Case And The Circumstances Under Which The Offence Was Committed, It May Be Proper That The Trial Court Shall Permit Them To Compound The Offence."
In Fahimuddin Versus State Of U.P.: AIR 1981 SC 2008 It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Under:-
"Special Leave Granted. After Carefully Perusing The Record, We Find That The Offence Disclosed Against The Appellants Is One Under Section 324 Read With Section 325 Of The Indian Penal Code. These Offences Are Compoundable With The Permission Of The Court. The Parties Have Made A Request That They Should Be Allowed To Compound The Case And They Have Also Filed A Composition Deed In The High Court. In View Of This, The Permission To Compound The Offence Is Granted And In Consequence The Appeal Is Allowed And The Appellants Are Acquitted Of The Charges Levelled Against Them."
In Manoj Versus State Of M.P.:AIR 2009 SC 22 It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Under:-
"14. The Appellants And The Complainant Are Residents Of The Same Village And With The Intervention Of The Village Panchayat The Complainant Has Compounded The Offence With The Appellants And Now He Has No Grievance Against Them. The Appellants And The Complainant Have Categorically Stated In Their Affidavits Filed Before Us That After The Incident They Have Developed Family Relations And They Wish To Reside Peacefully In The Village In Future Without Any Kind Of Disruption In Their Future Lives.
15. We Are Satisfied That The Complainant Has Voluntarily Desired To Compound The Offence With The Appellants For Sufficient And Genuine Reasons Stated In Their Respective Affidavits And Such Compounding Is Legal And Valid. We Allow The Parties To Compound The Offence Under Section 324, IPC. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4257/2008 Stands, Accordingly, Allowed. In View Of The Compounding, The Conviction And Sentence Is Set Aside."
In B.S.Joshi And Others Versus State Of Haryana And Others: (2003) SCC 675, It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Under:-
"8. It Is, Thus, Clear That Madhu Limaye's Case Does Not Lay Down Any General Proposition Limiting Power Of Quashing The Criminal Proceedings Or FIR Or Complaint As Vested In Section 482 Of The Code Or Extraordinary Power Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India. We Are, Therefore, Of The View That If For The Purpose Of Securing The Ends Of Justice, Quashing Of FIR Becomes Necessary, Section 320 Would Not Be A Bar To The Exercise Of Power Of Quashing. It Is, However, A Different Matter Depending Upon The Facts And Circumstances Of Each Case Whether To Exercise Or Not Such A Power.
.............................................................
............................................................
15.In View Of The Above Discussion, We Hold That The High Court In Exercise Of Its Inherent Powers Can Quash Criminal Proceedings Or FIR Or Complaint And Section 320 Of The Code Does Not Limit Or Affect The Powers Under Section 482 Of The Code."

In Rahul Agarwal Versus Rakesh Jain And Another: AIR 2005 SC 910 It Has Been Observed By The Apex Court As Under:-
"If The Withdrawal Of Prosecution Is Likely To Bury The Dispute And Bring About Harmony Between The Parties And It Would Be In The Best Interest Or Justice, The Court May Allow The Withdrawal Of Prosecution. The Discretion Under Section 321 Code Of Criminal Procedure Is To Be Carefully Exercised By The Court Having Due Regard To All The Relevant Facts And Shall Not Be Exercised To Stifle The Prosecution Which Is Being Done At The Instance Of The Aggrieved Parties Or The States For Redressing Their Grievance. Every Crime Is An Offence Against The Society And If The Accused Committed An Offence, Society Demands That He Should Be Punished. Punishing The Person Who Perpetrated The Crime Is An Essential Requirement For The Maintenance Of Law And Order And Peace In The Society. Therefore, The Withdrawal Of The Prosecution Shall Be Permitted Only When Valid Reasons Are Made Out For The Same."
In Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State Of Punjab : (2008) SCC

582 It Has Been Observed By The Apex Court As Under:-

"5. It Is On The Basis Of This Compromise That The Application Was Filed In The High Court For Quashing Of Proceedings Which Has Been Dismissed By The Impugned Order. We Notice From A Reading Of The FIR And The Other Documents On Record That The Dispute Was Purely A Personal One Between Two Contesting Parties And That It Arose Out Of Extensive Business Dealings Between Them And That There Was Absolutely No Public Policy Involved In The Nature Of The Allegations Made Against The Accused. We Are, Therefore, Of The Opinion That No Useful Purpose Would Be Served In Continuing With The Proceedings In The Light Of The Compromise And Also In The Light Of The Fact That The Complainant Has, On 11th January 2004, Passed Away And The Possibility Of A Conviction Being Recorded Has Thus To Be Ruled Out. We Need To Emphasize That It Is Perhaps Advisable That In Disputes Where The Question Involved Is Of A Purely Personal Nature, The Court Should Ordinarily Accept The Terms Of The Compromise Even In Criminal Proceedings As Keeping The Matter Alive With No Possibility Of A Result In Favour Of The Prosecution Is A Luxury Which The Courts, Grossly Overburdened As They Are, Cannot Afford And That The Time So Saved Can Be Utilized In Deciding More Effective And Meaningful Litigation. This Is A Common Sense Approach To The Matter Based On Ground Of Realities And Bereft Of The Technicalities Of The Law. We See From The Impugned Order That The Learned Judge Has Confused A Compounding Of An Offence With The Quashing Of Proceedings. The Outer Limit Of Rs.250/- Which Has Led To The Dismissal Of The Application Is An Irrelevant Factor In The Later Case. We Accordingly Allow The Appeal And In The Peculiar Facts Of The Case, Direct That FIR No. 155 Dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar And All Proceedings Connected Therewith Shall Be Deemed To Be Quashed."
In Manoj Sharma Versus State And Others : (2008) SCC 1 It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Under:-
"6. We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Respective Parties And The Facts Involved In This Case, And We Are Not Inclined To Accept Mr. Singh's Contention That The Decision In B.S. Joshi's Case Requires Reconsideration, At Least Not In The Facts Of This Case. What Was Decided In B.S. Joshi's Case Was The Power And Authority Of The High Court To Exercise Jurisdiction Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Or Under Article 226 Of The Constitution To Quash Offences Which Are Not Compoundable. The Law Stated In The Said Case Simply Indicates The Powers Of The High Court To Quash Any Criminal Proceeding Or First Information Report Or Complaint Whether It Be Compoundable Or Not. The Ultimate Exercise Of Discretion Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Or Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Is With The Court Which Has To Exercise Such Jurisdiction In The Facts Of Each Case. It Has Been Explained That The Said Power Is In No Way Limited By The Provisions Of Section 320 Cr. P.C. We Are Unable To Disagree With Such Statement Of Law. In Any Event, In This Case, We Are Only Required To Consider Whether The High Court Had Exercised Its Jurisdiction Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Legally And Correctly."
In View Of Forgoing Discussions, The Conclusion Is Inescapable That Allowing Prosecution Of The Applicants To Go On Will Not Serve Any Purpose At All And It Will Only Amount To Harassment Of The Litigating Parties. At Least In This Case It Will Be Desirable For This Court To Exercise It's Inherent Powers And Nip The Prosecution Into It's Bud Considering Peculiar Facts And Circumstances Of The Case And In The Best Interest Of The Students And The Institute Deemed University.
All The Above 482 Cr.P.C. Applications And Revisions Are Allowed And Proceedings Of Criminal Case No. 7339 Of 2008, State Versus Robin L. Prasad And Others U/S 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 I.P.C., PS Naini, District Allahabad, Relating To Crime Number 311 Of 2005, Pending Before A.C.J.M., Room No.2, Allahabad Along With Impugned Summoning Order Of The Accused Applicants/ Revisionists Are Hereby Quashed.

Go to Navigation