Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 320 and 482 – In SLP (Crl.) No.9859/13, FIR was lodged against the accused persons for offences punishable u/ss. 307, 294 and 34, IPC – Accused filed petition u/s.482, CrPC before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the accused and the complainant – High Court quashed the criminal proceedings – In SLP (Crl.) No.9860/13, FIR filed against the accused persons for offences punishable inter alia u/s.394, IPC and 25/27, Arms Act – Accused approached the High Court for quashing said FIR – High Court quashed the criminal proceedings – On appeal, held: High Court has not at all considered the fact that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as per s.320, CrPC – It did not at all consider the seriousness of the offences, its social impact and mechanically quashed the respective FIRs – High Court did not consider the distinction between a personal or private wrong and a social wrong and its social impact – Without proper application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, the High Court materially erred in quashing the respective FIRs observing that in view of the compromise, there are no chances of recording conviction and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility – In SLP(Crl.) No.9860/2013, all the accused were absconding – After a period of approximately three months after the incident, alleged to happen on 21.12.12, accused approached the High Court u/s.482, Cr.P.C., on 12.03.2013 – In the meantime, the accused managed to get the affidavits of the complainant and the two witnesses dtd. 09.02.2013 and the High Court quashed the FIR on 15.03.2013, within three days from the date of filing the petition – Accused persons were facing number of trials for the serious offences – High Court did not consider the antecedents of the accused – It ought to have been more vigilant and consider facts and circumstances under which the accused entered into the settlement – Impugned judgments set aside– Respective FIRs/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the respective accused – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 34, 294 307 and 394 –Arms Act– ss.25 and 27.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has not at all considered the fact that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as per Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. From the impugned judgments and orders, it appears that the High Court has not at all considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the seriousness of the offences and its social impact. From the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has mechanically quashed the respective FIRs, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has not at all considered the distinction between a personal or private wrong and a social wrong and the social impact. In the case at hand, the High Court has not at all taken pains to scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and has quashed the criminal proceedings mechanically. Even, the quashing of the respective FIRs by the High Court in the present cases inter alia for the offences under Sections 307, 294 and 34 of the IPC and
394 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act respectively, and that too in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is just contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. [Para 16.1][444-E-G; 445-A, B]
1.2 The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong. [Para 18] [451-F, G]
1.3 Without proper application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, the High Court has materially erred in mechanically quashing the respective FIRs, by observing that in view of the compromise, there are no chances of recording conviction and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appeal arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 9860/2013, the High Court has erred in quashing the FIR. It is required to be noted that the FIR was lodged on 21.12.2012 for the offence alleged to happen on 21.12.2012. All the accused were absconding. After a period of approximately three months, they approached the High Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., on 12.03.2013. The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused persons on 14.03.2013. In the meantime, the accused managed to get the affidavits of the complainant and the two witnesses dated 09.02.2013, and the High Court quashed the FIR on 15.03.2013, i.e., within a period of three days from the date of filing the petition. The High Court has also not considered the antecedents of the accused. It has come on record that the accused persons were facing number of trials for the serious offences. The aforesaid would be relevant factors, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and while considering the application for quashing the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings. In fact, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have been more vigilant and ought to have considered relevant facts and circumstances under which the accused got the settlement entered into. The High Court has not at all considered the aforesaid relevant circumstances, while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court are set aside, and the respective FIRs/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the respective accused, and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. [Paras 18.1, 18.2, 19][452-H; 453-A-F]
Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another (2011) 10 SCC 705 : [2011] 13 SCR 135 – held inapplicable.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 : [2012] 8 SCR 753; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307 : [2015] 8 SCR 723; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; 2019 SCC Online SC 7; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh [2019] 1 SCALE 165; State of
Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (2014) 15 SCC 29; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466 : [2014] 4 SCR 1012 – relied on.
J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 : [2016] 2 SCR 1047; Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC
58 : [2013] 2 SCR 921; Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 290; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC
443 – referred to.
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.