Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed, seeking to quash the proceedings of S.T. No. 538 of 2017 (arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2017), under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Deoraniya, District - Bareilly, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Bareilly.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have entered into a compromise, that has been filed before the Trial Court on 12.12.2019. Learned counsel for the complainant has appeared, as he was granted time on 21.01.2021 to seek instructions.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the motion to admit this application to hearing.
This Court has perused the injury report dated 04.05.2019, which records three injuries. The first is a stitched wound 7 cm., placed obliquely on left-sided of the head, 10 cm. above the left ear pinna. It was advised to be kept under observation and referred for an x-ray examination. The second is a red contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. present on the upper end of the root of nose. This injury too was advised to be kept under observation and referred for an x-ray examination. The third is a red brown contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. present on the right shoulder. This injury was also advised to be kept under observation. The supplementary medical report relating to the injured shows fracture of the fronto-parietal bone. The right shoulder too shows a fracture of the clavicle. The report clearly opines that injury nos. 1 and 3 are grievous in nature, as there is fracture seen in the skull bone and the clavicle. The injuries are, ex-facie, life threatening.
A triable case under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out. Assuming from the stance of the second opposite party, that the accused and the victim are minded to compromise, this Court cannot permit compounding of a non-compoundable offence by holding it to be an abuse of process, where the offence is serious, and the State is the forerunner of the prosecution. It is not the business of the victim in such a case to privately compound the offence, which is, primarily, an offence against the society and justice.
In this view of the matter, no case of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
In the result, this application fails and stands rejected.
Order Date :- 8.2.2021 I. Batabyal