Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Inherent powers of the High Court – Quashing of FIR – On facts, FIR for the offences u/ss. 307 and 34 and for the offences punishable u/ss. 323, 294, 308 and 34 respectively – Quashed by the High Court on basis of compromise between the complainant and the accused – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – High Court mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of its powers u/s. 482 CrPC – High Court did not at all consider the fact that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as per s. 320 CrPC, and more particularly the seriousness of the offences and its social impact, and the antecedents of the accused – High Court erred in quashing the FIR holding that as the complainant had compromised with the accused, there was no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside.
ss. 482 and 320 – Power u/s. 482 to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences u/s. 320, where parties have settled the matter between themselves – Exercise of – Guiding principles – Elucidated.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court quashed the FIR holding that there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial would be exercise in futility. The High Court did not at all consider the fact that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as per Section
320 Cr.P.C. From the impugned judgment and order, 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 judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, 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. [Para 9, 9.1][873-B-E]
1.2 As regards the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji’s case, while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility is concerned, the High Court clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the said ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. 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. The Shiji’s decision may be applicable in a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties; the parties have resolved the dispute; that the offence is not against the society at large and/or the same may not have social impact; the dispute is a family/matrimonial dispute etc. The said decision may not be applicable in a case where the offences alleged are very serious and grave offences, having a social impact like offences under Section 307 IPC. The High Court has mechanically considered Shiji’s case without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. [Paras 11, 11.1][880-B-F; 881-D-E] Shiji @ Pappu & others v. Radhika and another (2011)
10 SCC 705 : [2011] 13 SCR 135 – held inapplicable.
2.1 The power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. [Para 13 (iii)][884-E-H]
2.2 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh’s case should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein. [Para 13 (iv)][885-A-E]
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 : [2014] 4 SCR 1012 – relied on.
2.3 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc. [Para 13 (v)][885-F-G]
3. The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court also failed to note the antecedents of the accused. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused. [Para 14, 15][885-G, H; 886-A-C]
4. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 350/2019 by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294,
308 & 34 IPC. Offence under Section 308 IPC is a noncompoundable offence. While committing the offence, the accused has used the fire arm. They are also absconding, and in the meantime, they have managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused. [Para 16][886-D-F]
State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC
149 : [2013] 12 SCR 973 ; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 : [2012] 8 SCR 753 ; State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : [2013] 12 SCR 973 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307 : [2015] 8 SCR 723 ; J.Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC
179 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rajveer Singh (2016)
12 SCC 471 ; Parbatbhai AAhir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 : [2017] 10 SCR 12 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh decided on 4.1.2019 in Crl. Appeal No.14/2019 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar decided on 22.02.2019 in Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Criminal) No.9859/2013 ; State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 – 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.