During the pendency of the trial, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the accused persons, i.e. Respondent Nos.
2 to 4; and one of the victims i.e. Respondent No.5 – Trial Court on considering the said agreement rejected the same by observing that (i) chargesheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC of which Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 364 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature;(ii) the FIR was lodged by the Appellant yet he was not made a party to the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) the Appellant had filed objections to the Settlement Agreement – Aggrieved, an application was filed by the accused persons before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC – High Court set aside entire proceedings.
Held: Appellant herein is (i) an injured victim qua the alleged offence; and (ii) the original complainant in the FIR. Appellant neither entered into any settlement with the accused persons nor was courting any such idea. This Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 laid down the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by High Courts vis-à-vis quashing of an FIR, criminal proceedings or complaint. In Gian Singh, this Court inter alia held that the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings; or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer; and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end; and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. In the present case, High Court has certainly erred by quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The High Court failed to notice that the Appellant i.e., an injured victim and original complainant was not a party to the Settlement Agreement and nor was agreeable to such a course of action. Accordingly, the Impugned Order neither secured the ends of justice nor prevented an abuse of process of law, thus the Impugned Order was erroneous and contrary to the principles laid down in Gian Singh. [Paras 11 and 12].
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.