A special court in Uttar Pradesh on Thursday acquitted three persons and convicted one for their alleged involvement in the gangrape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit girl.

The court acquitted Ramu, Lavkush and Ravi, while convicting Sandeep under Section 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code and relevant Sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 

On September 14, 2020, four men from the upper caste allegedly gangraped a 19-year-old girl in Hathras and even attempted to kill her. The victim told police in her statement that she was dragged by her dupatta into the fields from a spot where she had been cutting grass with her mother and brother. 

The girl suffered multiple fractures and a gash in her tongue. On September 29, she succumbed to her injuries at Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital.

When her mortal remains were taken to her native place, the UP Police and administration allegedly cremated her body forcefully without the family’s consent or their presence, in the dead of the night.

On October 1, 2020, the Allahabad High Court took suo motu cognisance of the gangrape and murder, stating that the incidents which took place after the death of the victim on September 29, 2020 leading up to her cremation, as alleged, had shocked the conscience of the judges.

On October 10, the High Court transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

CBI filed a charge sheet against all four accused in December 2020.

This was followed by a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court seeking independent or court-monitored probe and witness protection, among other reliefs.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision petition filed to set aside the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in case under section 323/34, 304/34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S Dhampur, District Bijnor.

A Single Bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Ishwar.

The facts are that an FIR was lodged on 08.07.2016 naming the applicants Ishwar, Nand Lal, Keshav and Ghanshyam. The allegations of the FIR is that on 08.07.2016 at 10:30-11:00 am, applicant- Ishwar, Nand Lal, Ghanshyam and Keshav started construction over the disputed land. The complainant and her husband and daughter Tannu prevented them from doing so, then all the four accused persons assaulted the complainant, putting him on earth, they assaulted him with bricks. Her husband received injuries in the stomach and became unconscious. The complainant and her daughter tried to save him but the accused-persons assaulted them. They went away from there abusing and extending threats with death. The complainant took her husband to the hospital where he is under treatment. Initially the case was registered under section 323, 504, 506 IPC. Due to the death of injured, Section 304 IPC was added.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted only against three accused namely Nand Lal, Ghanshyam and Keshav. The Investigating Officer exonerated the other named accused Ishwar. During the course of trial, after examination in chief of Savita Devi (complainant/ injured) an application U/s 319 CrPC was moved by the complainant/ prosecution alleging therein that accused Ishwar is named in the FIR and complainant Savita in her statement under section 161 CrPC has assigned the same role to him as the remaining accused. The examination in chief of Savita has been recorded in the court, she is one of the injured witnesses.

It is contended by the counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has summoned the revisionist only on the basis of a statement recorded under section 161 CrPC as well as examination in chief of the complainant. Without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the statement U/s 161 CrPC has been relied on. Hence the summoning order is illegal and arbitrary on the face of record and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

It is submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. No specific allegations have been levelled against any accused persons during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has collected the evidence to the effect that on the date of incident, the location of the mobile number of the revisionist was not near the place of incident.

The revisionist had two mobile numbers and the location of these mobile numbers shown at Moradabad. After verification of call detail records, it was found that he was not present at the place of occurrence.

The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Munesh Kumar (principal of coaching centre) where the revisionist was studying and other independent witnesses namely Monu Kumar, Manjul Kumar, Ranjeet Singh, Munendra Singh, Krishna Kumar, Jitendra etc. under section 161 CrPC and they have stated that on 08.07.2016 the revisionist was present in the coaching institute from 9:30 am to 12 noon.

During the course of investigation, evidence to this effect has come that on the date of incident, the revisionist was not present at the spot and accordingly the Investigating Officer deleted his name.

It is further contended that power U/s 319 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence occurs. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima-facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under section 319 CrPC.

Counsel further contended that Savita Devi in her statement illegally and falsely gave the name of the revisionist as well as the entire family. The learned trial court without any evidence & reasons and without recording the satisfaction has illegally summoned the revisionist. The order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is also contended that the trial court, without considering the legal aspect of the matter and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has illegally summoned the revisionist to face the trial.

AGA and counsel appearing for opposite party no 2 submitted that the Investigating Officer in collusion with the accused has wrongly exonerated the revisionist whereas the injured of the case had specifically named the revisionist as one of the accused who not only participated in causing death of her husband but also caused injuries to her.

The Investigating Officer has referred to two mobile numbers. The location of the mobile number has been shown at Moradabad, however, as per the verification report of the user of this number, it was informed to the Investigating Officer that this number is registered in the name of Keshav Kumar, the uncle of the revisionist. Thus, even the so called mobile detail record does not establish that the revisionist was at a different location inasmuch as the mobile number on the basis of which the Investigating Officer has come to this conclusion, belongs to Keshav Kumar and not to the revisionist. The entire case diary does not contain any call detail record and only a passing reference has been made by the Investigating Officer with respect to the two mobile numbers.

Counsel further contended that the revisionist has equally participated in the commission of the offence, the presence of the revisionist at the place of time and occurrence is clearly established from the statement of the injured witness during the course of trial.

The Court observed that,

It is undisputed that the revisionist was named in the FIR showing his complicity in the incident, one person has died in the incident while the other (complainant) has received injuries. The Investigating Officer has exonerated the revisionist during the investigation, on the basis of evidence that at the relevant time, his presence is not established to be at the place of occurrence as he was present at Moradabad in his coaching institute. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the Manager of the coaching institute and some other witnesses. This fact is uncontroverted that the mobile, the location of which is shown to be at Moradabad is registered in the name of Keshav Kumar and further that the entire case diary does not contain any CDR and only passing reference has been made by the Investigating Officer with respect to the two mobile numbers.

The FIR of this case has been lodged by the complainant who has also received injuries in the incident naming the revisionist and attributing the role of taking part in the incident. In her statement recorded U/s 161 CrPC, she has reiterated the allegations of the FIR but the Investigating Officer on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation as discussed above has exonerated the revisionist.

During the course of trial, the complainant has been examined as Savita Devi. Her examination in chief, was recorded in which she has again corroborated the allegations of the FIR showing the complicity of the revisionist in the incident. It is settled law that the testimony of an injured witness is of higher value and cannot be ignored.

In the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), the Apex Court held that the power U/s 319 CrPC can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination in chief and court does not need to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross examination for, it is the satisfaction of the court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the court, in respect of complicity of some other person(s), not facing the trial in the offence.

“So applying the test laid down by the Apex Court on the set of facts, it is clear that there is strong evidence, than mere probability of the complicity of the accused in the form of testimony of injured witness and it pass the test as laid down by the Apex Court which is more than prima-facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence if goes unrebutted would led to conviction. Further the material on the basis of which the revisionist was exonerated by the Investigating Officer is not conclusive in nature and this fact distinguishes this case from the case law of Bijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 relied on by the counsel for the revisionist. The case law cited by counsel for opposite party no 2 fully supports his arguments and is applicable in the set of facts.

In the impugned order, the trial court has narrated the entire facts and material on record and has critically analyzed all these materials. The trial court has recorded its satisfaction about the complicity of the revisionist and, therefore, has summoned him. The order is a detailed and reasoned one which is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned and it needs no interference”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.

The Allahabad High Court has overturned the sentence of an accused, while observing that conviction on the basis that the accused was last seen with the deceased was a very weak piece of evidence.

The Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order, while hearing an appeal filed by Sagar.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sagar against the May 9, 2013 order, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, arising out of Case under Section 304 IPC, Police Station-Behat, District-Saharanpur, whereby the accused was convicted and awarded sentence under Section 304 IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs 10,000.

The facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 9.9.2011 complainant Shyam Singh has given a typed written-report at the police station stating that on the day of Rakshabandhan on 13.8.2011 at about 10:00 o’clock when his brother Vinod s/o Peerdiyaa along with Sagar had gone somewhere from the home. On the way, they were followed by Sumit. When his brother Vinod did not come back home, he searched for him at the relatives and other friends place. On not being found, information was given at the police station on 17.8.2011.

On 25.8.2011 at 6:00 p.m the body of Vinod was recovered from the canal which is around 3 km from Baraut Police Chowki. On receiving information, the informant and others reached Baraut and identified the dead body of Vinod. His postmortem was conducted in Baghpat itself. Thereafter his funeral was conducted. The complainant was fully assure that Sagar had thrown the dead body in canal after committing murder due to enmity Pappu s/o Rulha and Aman s/o Ridkaram of his village were the witnesses of the said incident.

On the basis of the information, chik report was prepared by registering u/s 302 IPC on 9.9.2011 at 21:40 o’clock by clerk Ram Kashyap wherein the time of incident has been recorded on 13.8.2011 at 11:00 a.m. The distance of the place of occurrence from the police station has been shown to be 5 Km away.

The trial court framed charges against appellant under Sections 304 IPC. Charges were read over to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

After recording of evidence the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC and evidence led by prosecution against him was put to him. Accused stated that false evidence has been led against him. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is innocent. The custody certificate would show that the accused is in jail for more than 10 years. In the alternative it is submitted that if the accused is held guilty, he be given a sentence of, namely twelve years,three months and ten days with remission and the fine be reduced.

Per contra, AGA submitted that appellant is named in FIR. The Court below has already shown mercy and has convicted the accused appellant under Section 304 IPC. The dead body was thrown in a canal.

Before coming to the conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator, the court have to evaluate the evidence on record if he hold him guilty of the commission of offence, whether sentence of life imprisonment and fine is adequate or the sentence requires to be modified in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of certain judicial pronouncements and precedents applicable in such matters.

The Court observed that,

The fact that the evidence which has been on record only shows that the accused was last seen with the deceased. However, except this the chain which the Judge has mentioned does not satisfy the test for punishing an accused where the matter hinges on circumstantial evidence. Conviction on the basis of last seen is a very weak piece of evidence. In our case the chain which is set to be pointing the finger at the accused is very feeble. The Judge has held that the following are the instances which complete the chain namely the accused and the deceased were habituated to drink liquor. Just because the deceased was seen with the accused and just because his dead body was immediately recognized by the family members cannot mean that the chain is complete.

Even if we consider the other aspects it is not proved that he was the person who had committed the offence. There is no recovery from the accused. There is nothing incriminating except the confessional statement to one of the witnesses which is not proved to the hilt and could not have been acted upon .

In the alternative even if we concur with the court below whether the punishment of life imprisonment is justified for which we will have to go by the facts which we have narrated herein-above, the Court said.

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, the Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream.

“The ‘Reformative theory of punishment’ is to be adopted and for that reason, it is necessary to impose punishment keeping in view the ‘doctrine of proportionality’. That sentence awarded by the trial court for life term is very harsh, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence.

“The Apex Court has held that undue harshness should be avoided taking into account the reformative approach underlying the criminal justice system.

“The accused is in custody for nine years, one month and 17 days as on date of the report sent by the Office, which would mean that the undergone period would be 3507 days and the total sentence including remission is 12 years, three months and 18 days, as on June 23, 2022 and we are in October, 2022.

“However, on the scanty evidence, he is not required to be confined anymore and the sentence is overturned.

Only on the basis of last seen, he has been convicted for commission of offence Section 304 of IPC for life imprisonment which cannot be sustained,” the Court further observed, while allowing the appeal.

The Allahabad High Court has reduced the sentence of a man and his second wife, who were convicted for killing his first wife, from life imprisonment to seven years of incarceration.

The Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Sultan alias Munna and Another.

It observed that the death caused by the accused persons was not premeditated but they intentionally caused such bodily injuries which were likely to cause death. Hence the case falls under the exceptions (1) and (4) to Section 300 of IPC. While considering Section 299 IPC, offences committed will fall under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC.

The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.2.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, in Session Trail arising out of Case under Section 302/34 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad, whereby the accused appellants are convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year; accused- appellants were further convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years each with fine of Rs 5000 each and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each.

The facts of the case are that the first information report of the case was lodged by complainant Aslam (father) with the averment that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused Munna alias Sultan, son of Nabeedraj, about eight years ago.

Earlier also before the said incident, the appellant had tried to push the victim from the terrace, leading to injuries to the complainant’s daughter, around four years ago.

Sultan contracted the marriage with one Yashmeen and because of that, there was constant quarrel and Sultan and his second wife Yasmeen hatched a common intention to do away with his daughter and that is how, she was set ablaze . Sabeen received several burn injuries. The accused got Sabeen admitted in hospital and absconded. Sabeena had suffered about 70% burn injuries and she was in the hospital.

A first information report was registered on the basis of the above written report. During the course of investigation, IO recorded statements of witnesses, prepared a site-plan. The Dying Declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Magistrate. After the death of the deceased, an inquest report was prepared and a post mortem was conducted. After a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused Sultan, husband of the deceased and Yasmeen, second wife of Sultan. The trial court framed charges against both the accused under Sections 498A, 302/34 of IPC.

Accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused have been falsely implicated in the case. The deceased caught fire while cooking and they have not caused her death. No dowry was ever asked for.

It is further submitted that the accused has not set the deceased on fire. She caught fire while she was trying to go inside the room. It was the accused, who tried to save her.

The counsel further submitted that the Court has not even relied on the PW-1, PW-4 did not support the prosecution case. PW-1 is not the eye witness and PW-4 has not supported the prosecution case.

Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the High Court in Criminal Appeal (Pramod Kumar vs State of UP) on passed on February 28, 2019 and has contended that the accused are innocent and in the alternative, has submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the death was because of the act of the accused, then the offence would be falling within the provision of Section 304 of IPC and not Section 302 of IPC

Counsel for the appellants said that dying-declaration of the deceased was recorded when she was surviving, but this dying-declaration has no corroboration with any prosecution evidence. Most of the witnesses have turned hostile and the version of FIR is not supported by the oral testimony. Therefore, the trial court committed grave error by convicting the accused on the basis of dying declaration.

Counsel for the appellants additionally submitted that if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that appellants have committed the offence, in that case also no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out. Maximum this case can travel up to the limits of offence under Section 304 IPC because the deceased died after 4 months of the incident due to developing the infection in her burn-wounds, i.e, septicemia. As per the catena of judgments of the Apex Court and the Court, offence cannot travel beyond Section 304 IPC, in case where the death occurred due to septicemia.

Per contra, the AGA vehemently opposed the arguments placed by counsel for the appellants and submitted that conviction of accused can be based only on the basis of dying-declaration, if it was wholly reliable. It required no corroboration.

Moreover, testimony of hostile witnesses could also be relied on to the extent it supported the prosecution’s case. The trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC and sentenced accordingly. There was no force in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.

The Court noted that the submission by the counsel for the appellants that deceased died due to septicaemia, hence the case falls within the ambit of Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. In this regard, counsel has submitted that the deceased died after four months of incident due to septicemia. There was no intention of the appellants to cause the death of the deceased.

The Court held that the finding of fact regarding the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence cannot be faulted with. Death of the deceased was a homicidal death. The fact that it was a homicidal death takes this Court to most vexed question whether it would fall within the four corners of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, it was considering the question whether it would be a murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 IPC. The accused-appellants have been in jail since February 3, 2017.

“On overall scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the opinion of the Medical Officer and considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tukaram and Ors vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 250 and in the case of BN Kavatakar and Another vs State of Karnataka, reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we are of the considered opinion that it was a case of homicidal death not amounting to murder. We are also of the considered opinion that in the case at hand, the offence would be punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC.

From the upshot of the aforesaid discussions it appears that the death caused by the accused persons was not premeditated but they intentionally caused such bodily injuries which were likely to cause death. Hence the case falls under the exceptions (1) and (4) to Section 300 of IPC. While considering Section 299 IPC, offences committed will fall under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that appeal has to be partly allowed”, the Court observed while allowing the appeal.

“The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is converted into conviction under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and the appellants are sentenced to undergo seven years of incarceration. The fine and default sentence are maintained”, the Court ordered.

The Supreme court refused to grant bail to Police officer, Jayendrasinh Anopsinh Padhiyar who was in charge of Mundra Police Station, under whose custody two detainees were found to be dead. Jayendrasinh Anopsinh Padhiyar, preferred appeal seeking bail on the ground that till now no blemish in my career so far, maximum it can be case of delinquency but section 302 IPC does not attract against me. 

A two judge Bench presided by Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice Anirudha Bose, observing the case submitted that two custodial deaths occurred in your presence and one victim suffered serious injury. 

Huzefa Ahmadi for Petitioner argued that I was in-charge of concerned Police station. Maximum, there can be case of delinquency but it is not a case made out under section 302.   

J. Anirudha Bose submitted that it happened under your custody and You arrested him without arrest memo. 

Hufeza Ahmadi, put forth his contentions in his defence that in his entire career, my career has remained unblemished. 

Ld. Single Judge S.H.Vora came to the conclusion that as  ‘entire episode of arrest of the victims with regard to the FIR lodged for the theft was stage managed episode in resolving the land dispute at the behest of one Mr. Jayveersinh Jadeja. Being in charge of
Mundra Police Station and he was fully aware that the victims
are brought to the police station and kept inside the police
station since 13.1.2021 till one Mr. Arjan died on 19.1.2021 in
Mundra Police Station. 

Medical reports and postmortem reports depicts that indicate the extent of brutality being committed by all the accused persons by which, two persons were murdered and one had received serious injuries, observed by the Gujarat High Court.

Another view taken by Ld. Single Judge of Gujarat High Court regarding the indulgence of Petitioner was that  inaction on the part of the Petitioner can never be considered to be negligency in discharging duties, but in fact he permitted his subordinates to fulfill their common intention, may be for the land dispute with private persons who are accused in the present offence.

AVERMENTS AGAINST PETITIONER AS MENTIONED IN IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2022– 

Co-accused Mr. Jayveersinh Jadeja wanted to grab the land bearing revenue survey No.23/2 situated in the sim of village Samaghogha, which is owned by Gadhvi family and as deceased Mr. Harjog Gadhvi made an application to the Mamlatdar, Mundra with regard to dispute of compensation amount for Narmada Canal, said co-accused Mr. Jayveersinh Jadeja having good terms with police personnel of D” staff of Mundra Police Station took advantage of the same and got booked the victims for the alleged offence of theft. 

The High Court of Gujarat while dismissing his regular bail application filed under section 439 CrPC for the offences involved under 302, 343,330, 331, 326, 212, 201, 34 and 114 of the IPC and u/s 135 of the G.P. Act, held that Petitioner is found to be direct abettor with other co accused persons, under whose presence one victim received grievous injuries and other two custodial persons were found to be dead. 

No leniency can be shown for this offence as this offence falls under  Part I of section 304 IPC  in view of exception 3 of section 300 of IPC, held by Ld. Single Judge S.H.Vora J, of Gujarat High Court. 

The prosecution avers that  on 13.1.2021, the
first informant received call from his relative namely Kheraj that
Mr. Arjan Gadhvi was illegally picked up by certain police
officers of Mundra Police Station and they had illegally confined
him as a suspect in the crime registered with Mundra Police
Station for the offences punishable u/s 454, 457 and 380 of the
IPC. The first informant visited Mundra Police Station on
16.1.2021 and said Mr. Arjan informed him that he has not
committed any crime of theft and further, he had been brutally
assaulted and tortured by three officers, namely Mr. Shaktisinh
Gohil, Mr. Ashok Kannad and Mr. Jayendrasinh Zala.
Thereafter, one Mr. Harjog Gadhvi and Mr. Shamra Gadhvi were
detained on 16.1.2021 in connection with the aforesaid offences
of theft and while in illegal confinement, all the three victims
were brutally assaulted and tortured and due to the same, Mr.
Arjan developed chest pain and he was rushed to the Hospital
and was declared dead on 19.1.2021. Subsequently, Mr. Harjog
Gadhvi and Mr. Shamra Gadhvi were admitted for medical
treatment. However, Mr. Harjog Gadhvi succumbed on 6.2.2021
to the injuries sustained by him

Contentions on behalf of counsel of Jayendrasingh, Police Inspector in charge were that there is no allegation of beating against him. Also, the case cannot go beyond Part 1 of Section 304 IPC ,in view of exception of section 300 of IPC.

The Allahabad High Court observed that it is not right to quash FIR when a cognizable offence has been committed.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ajai Tyagi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Writ Petition filed by Govind Dwivedi.

The petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the FIR in case under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Sipari Bazar Jhansi, District Jhansi.

As per the FIR, the deceased was an electricity lineman and while he was performing some work of repair, the main line got connected due to which he died due to electric shock.

The FIR is challenged firstly on the ground that two persons had sought for shutdown on the same line and as one of the persons had completed work and had requested resumption of electricity connection, therefore, the electricity was resumed and secondly on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise.

“From a perusal of the record made available, we find that a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed and the question as to whether there was any negligence or intentional act leading to death of the deceased are all questions to be examined at the stage of investigation/trial. We would not be justified in quashing the FIR in that regard,” the Court observed.

“Considering the nature of offence, we are also not persuaded to consider the prayer for quashing of the FIR on account of alleged compromise between the parties particularly as no specific material in that regard has otherwise been annexed,” the Court said while dismissing the petition.

“Dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from seeking remedy in terms of Section 438/439 of CrPC which shall be examined by the appropriate forum on its own merits and in accordance with law,” the order reads.