The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an attempt to murder case on the ground of compromise between the parties.

A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir held, “The supplementary medical report shows evidence of a radio-opaque shadow of metallic density seen in the temporomandibular joint. This shows that the pellets from the fire-arm were lodged in the temporomandibular joint. This being the nature of and injury and the site, beside the weapon used, to permit the parties to compromise would be an abdication of the State's function to prosecute offences against the society. This certainly, in opinion of the Court, cannot be permitted. To the understanding of this Court, the principle laid down in Narinder Singh case does not approve of such a composition and quashing on its basis.”

The Bench noted that the gunshot injury was sustained on the neck, which is a vital part of the body, and that the medicolegal report clearly showed that there was blackening in the area of 12cm x 12cm at the site of the injury on the neck, where the gunshot injury was received.

Advocate Prabhakar Chandel represented the applicant i.e., the accused while Advocate Devendra Singh represented the opposite party.

In this case, an application was filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge as the submission of the counsel for the applicant was that the parties have compromised the matter and moved a compromise application for the same. It was argued that there were no chances of conviction since the complainant i.e., the opposite party had compromised and would not testify in support of the prosecution, in case a trial was held.

As per the facts of the case, the complainant along with his uncle was riding a motorcycle proceeding home from a village and when the two reached a turning, the accused was waiting by the side of the canal. It was alleged that he bore a grudge against the accused and upon seeing the complainant, the accused chased the complainant and shortly thereafter, opened fire due to which the complainant received a gunshot injury to his neck and the accused escaped from the spot.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “A reading of the FIR and the medico-legal report does not spare a shadow of doubt that the applicant shot the complainant-opposite party with a country-made pistol and the complainant received a gun shot wound to his neck. It is only by sheer luck that he survived the fatal attack. Learned counsel for the applicant says that since there are no chances of conviction and given the stance of the complainant-opposite party, who is willing to compromise, proceedings of the case ought to be quashed.”

The Court further said that as per the evidence, the weapon used was a firearm and it brooks little doubt that a person who opens FIR at another does so with the intention to kill and that he certainly does not do so with the intention to love or play a jest.

“This order will in no manner prejudice in doing an independent of evidence at the trial. … Let this order be communicated to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot through the learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours”, directed the Court.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the plea.

Cause Title- Mujeem v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:107220)

Click here to read/download the Order