Offences under Section 307 IPC can be quashed under exceptional circumstances: High Court of Delhi
The High Court of Delhi exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. This was held in the case of Mohammed Umair v. State and Anr, [CRL.M.C. 674/2021], by Hon’ble Justice Subramanion Prasad.  The accused who was arguing with his mother started abusing the complainant and started fighting with him when he asked him not to argue with his mother. It is stated that the accused slapped the complainant and when people gathered there the accused threatened the complainant and went towards his house. It was alleged that the accused stabbed the complainant on the stomach. The MLC the doctor has recorded the present case to be one of physical assault near home address and reported stab injury in the abdomen. Charge-sheet has been filed against the complainant. The charge-sheet states that the complainant has suffered grievous injuries. The accused/petitioner was later released on bail . A petition was filed on the ground that after the intervention of the parents and the well-wishers the parties have stated to settle their disputes. Reliance was placed on the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it was held that the High Court has the power to quash FIR/complaint on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provided it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. The Court observed that “As there is a close relation between equality and justice, it should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under Section 307 IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to discuss the subject at length. It is for this reason we deem it appropriate to lay down some distinct, definite and clear guidelines which can be kept in mind by the High Courts to take a view as to under what circumstances it should accept the settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings and under what circumstances it should refrain from doing so”.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Case No.1398 of 2020 by which the High Court has released of 2019 under Sections 420 467 468 471 120­B IPC registered in Police Station Kotwali District Unnao the original informant 3. That the Record Keeper of the Civil Court Unnao on the order of the District Judge Unnao has lodged an FIR against Respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 420 467 468 471 120­B IPC. It is required to be noted that before the said FIR was lodged a writ petition was filed by the appellant herein before the High Court of Judicature at for issuance of writ of mandamus to take action on the complaint made by him against Respondent No.2 herein for whitener in Sessions Trial No.89­A 01 State vs. Mahesh under Sections 307 504 and 506 IPC Crime Case No.152 2000 Police with and instead of ‘Mahesh’ ‘Ramesh’ had been written Track Court Unnao. It appears that earlier in the order dated 14.11.2018 the very Learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast the fabrication in the court record. Therefore the High Court thought it fit to call his comments as to in context of which document the observations were made in order dated 14.11.2018. It appears that thereafter the Learned Additional Sessions Judge sent his comments enquiry report dated 09.01.2019 indicating that the judicial record pertaining to Sessions Trial No.89­A 01 State vs. Mahesh under Sections 307 504 and 506 IPC Crime Case No.152 of 2000 Police Station Makhi District Unnao was tampered with. The High done. Thereafter on the order of the Learned District and Sessions Judge Unnao the Record keeper has lodged the common order was passed on 23.12.2002 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Unnao in Sessions Case No.583 2000 State Vs. Pappu Singh under Section 307 504 506 IPC PS Makhi District Unnao Case No.152 2000 Sessions Case Crime No.153 2000 and Session Case No.89 2001 State Vs. Guddu Singh under Sections 04.05.2012 in which name of any of the accused was not said decision order was obtained on 04.05.2012. In the first page of the decision case of Mahesh was separated as he absconded. The certified copy of the said order dated has been inscribed and the whitener has been applied which has been added inserted in page no.1 while there was no accused by name of Ramesh. That a Special Case No.11 12 Crime No.132 2002 under Section 2 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities Act 1986 hereinafter and under consideration in Special Court Judge Gangster Act Additional Sessions Judge Court No.5 Unnao in which a behalf of Mahesh Singh Paper No.B 346 was presented shown in the Gangsters Act including the Special Case No.583 2000 the Learned Special Court 14 SCC 493 Seema Singh vs. CBI 2018) 16 SCC 10 Manish Solanki vs. State of Rajasthan said that the allegations made in the FIR are prima facie by any of his acquaintances has applied for certified copy of has not been obtained by Mahesh Singh or by any of his 7.2. Number of other submissions have been made by the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 to the effect 7.3 It is further submitted that even it is also not true that 7.4 It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on to assail the grant of bail sought by Respondent No.2. It is submitted that he is neither the complainant nor the affected the case of Amanullah vs. State of Bihar 6 SCC 699 it the matter under consideration and is having a personal 7.6 It is submitted that even the present petition is being 8.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that Respondent 420 467 468 471 120­B IPC. It is also required to be noted After the enquiry report submitted by the Learned Additional the Court record has been manipulated and forged the High has been lodged against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. If we consider the allegations in that case the allegations are very serious of tampering and or case. It is also required to be noted that now after the investigation is concluded the charge­sheet has been filed against the Respondent accused and even the charges have also reported to be framed. Thus a prima facie case is found the High Court it appears that High Court has not adverted itself to the seriousness of the case and the offences alleged released Respondent No.2 accused on bail in a routine and manipulating the court order. From the impugned judgment thereto without commenting anything on merit as to the complicity involvement and severeness of the offences the case accused is charged for the offences under Sections 420 467 468 471 120­B IPC and the maximum punishment for offence and even for the offence under Section 471 IPC the similar court record and getting benefit of such forged manipulated court record is a very serious offence. If the Court record is Therefore the High Court ought to have been more to have forged manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge­sheeted having found 8.3 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused Act is concerned. From the order passed by Learned Special Court Gangsters Act it appears that the judgment and order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge dated 23.12.2002 was produced in which Respondent No.2 accused ­ Mahesh was shown as acquitted. On the basis of the same the Learned Special Court acquitted Respondent No.2 ­accused. Therefore in fact he is the beneficiary of the said forged manipulated the case on behalf of the accused that it might have been is the beneficiary of such forged manipulated court order and having taken advantage of such order thereafter it will not be looking to the very serious allegations of No.2 on bail. Merely because the charge­sheet is filed is no there is no chance of tampering is concerned the allegation relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail accused that the appellant has no locus to file the present No.2 ­ accused and thereafter the High Court directed the enquiry report and thereafter the FIR has been lodged file the present application for cancellation of the bail. Even otherwise in a case like this where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that accused on bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed consequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court if not surrendered. However it is made clear that any to have been confined to the grant of bail and the trial to be