Read Time: 05 minutes
Court noted that it was only by sheer luck that the victim had survived the fatal attack.
The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a plea filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in an attempt to murder case on ground of compromise between both parties.
The bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that the nature of the injury to the victim, the weapon used, and the site of the incident were as such that permitting the parties to compromise would be an abdication of the State's function to prosecute offences against the society.
"It is only by sheer luck that he(victim) survived the fatal attack", highlighted the bench.
The accused had moved an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the high court to quash the proceedings in a case registered under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder).
The allegations against the accused were that he bore a grudge against the complainant and his uncle and when the latter two were returning home on a motorcycle in the year 2010, the accused chased the complainant on the road and opened fire at him.
The complainant received a gunshot injury to his neck. However, despite the injury, the complainant and his uncle chased the accused, but he managed to escape.
Thereafter, the complainant's injuries were subjected to a medico-legal examination where it was revealed that they were caused by a country-made pistol and were fatal.
Seeking relief before the high court, the accused-applicant's counsel apprised the court that both the parties in the case had compromised the matter and a compromised application had already been moved before the court of Additional Sessions Judge on April 4, 2023.
He further contended that since the complainant had compromised the matter and would not support the prosecution case anymore, therefore, there was no chance of conviction in the matter.
Therefore, while referring to the holding of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2014), the cousel for the accused argued that in view of parties' will to compromise the matter, the proceedings of the case ought to be quashed.
However, the court noted that the evidence clearly showed that the weapon used was a firearm. "...it brooks little doubt that a person who opens FIR at another does so with the intention to kill. He certainly does not do so with the intention to love or play a jest," said the court.
Therefore, while stressing that in view of the facts of the present case, the principle laid down in the Narinder Singh case did not approve of such a composition and quashing of the case on its basis, court rejected the accused's plea.
Case Title: Mujeem v. State Of U.P. And Another
Please Login or Register
