Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1042 - SC - Indian LawsRefusal to accept compromise / settlement between the parties - Power of high court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings - Held that - We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized . This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted. - Decided in favour of appellants. Principles lay down by which the High Court guided - 1) Power under Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 2) When parties have reached the settlement and petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor would be to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. 3) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. 4) Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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. 5) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 6) The High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 7) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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. 8) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR based on a compromise between the parties. 2. The nature of the offense under Section 307 IPC and its implications for quashing proceedings. 3. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The distinction between compounding of offenses under Section 320 of the Code and quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. 5. Guidelines for the High Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code. Detailed Analysis: Quashing of FIR Based on a Compromise Between the Parties: The petitioners sought to quash FIR No.121/14.7.2010, registered under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC, based on a compromise dated 22.7.2013. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, citing the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant, particularly injury No.3, which was serious as per the medical report. The petitioners argued that the parties had settled their differences, and continuing the criminal proceedings would be futile and a waste of court resources. The Nature of the Offense Under Section 307 IPC: Section 307 IPC pertains to the attempt to commit murder, which is a serious and non-compoundable offense. The Court emphasized that such offenses are generally considered crimes against society rather than individual disputes. The jurisprudence of sentencing, including theories of deterrence and retribution, was discussed to highlight the gravity of such offenses. However, the Court also acknowledged that not every case under Section 307 IPC might warrant the same treatment, especially if the injuries and circumstances suggest otherwise. The Power of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court recognized that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offenses if it serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of the process of the court. This power is distinct from the power to compound offenses under Section 320 of the Code, which is limited to specific offenses and requires court permission. The Distinction Between Compounding of Offenses Under Section 320 of the Code and Quashing of Proceedings Under Section 482 of the Code: The Court elaborated on the difference between compounding offenses under Section 320 and quashing proceedings under Section 482. Compounding is guided solely by the compromise between the parties and is permissible for minor or non-serious offenses. In contrast, quashing under Section 482 involves a broader consideration of whether continuing the proceedings would serve justice or constitute an abuse of the court's process. Guidelines for the High Court to Exercise Its Power Under Section 482 of the Code: The Court laid down specific guidelines for the High Court to follow when considering quashing proceedings based on a compromise: 1. The power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with caution. 2. The guiding factors should be the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the court's process. 3. Serious offenses, especially those involving mental depravity or significant societal impact, should not be quashed merely based on a compromise. 4. Offenses with a predominantly civil character, such as those arising from commercial transactions or matrimonial disputes, may be quashed if the parties have resolved their differences. 5. The High Court should assess whether the possibility of conviction is remote and whether continuing the proceedings would cause undue oppression or injustice to the accused. 6. The nature and gravity of the offense under Section 307 IPC should be carefully evaluated, including the injuries sustained and the weapons used. 7. The timing of the settlement is crucial, with more leniency possible if the settlement occurs early in the proceedings. Application to the Present Case: In the present case, the FIR was registered under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC, and the investigation was complete with charges framed. The parties reached a compromise after the charges were framed but before the evidence was recorded. The Court noted that the dispute appeared to be personal, and the chances of conviction were minimal due to the compromise. The Court decided to quash the proceedings, acknowledging the importance of the compromise in promoting harmony and peace between the parties. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010, acknowledging the compromise between the parties and the minimal chances of conviction. The judgment provides a comprehensive framework for the High Courts to exercise their powers under Section 482 of the Code, balancing the interests of justice and societal impact.
|