9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1935 - SC - Indian LawsRefusal to accept compromise / settlement between the parties - Inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings - non-compoundable offence - conduct on the part of the Accused were required to be considered by the High Court while quashing the FIR - apparent conflict between the two decisions of this Court in the cases of NARINDER SINGH ORS. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ANR 2015 (2) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat 2013 (11) TMI 1789 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - So far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh and Shambhu Kewat is concerned, in the case of Shambhu Kewat (supra), this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court Under Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure and the powers conferred Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceedings or criminal complaint Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the very Bench ultimately concluded that Power conferred Under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, Under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. It is observed and held as under i) that 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; ii) 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; iii) 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; iv) offences Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code. 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 in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated; v) while exercising the power Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable 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. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Compromise between the complainant and the accused. 3. Seriousness and gravity of the offenses under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Distinction between personal/private wrongs and social wrongs. 5. Applicability of previous Supreme Court decisions (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat). Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The High Court quashed the FIR against the accused under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. The Supreme Court found that the High Court mechanically quashed the FIR without considering the seriousness of the offenses and their social impact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offenses. 2. Compromise between the complainant and the accused: The High Court relied on the decision in Shiji v. Radhika, concluding that due to the compromise, there was no chance of conviction, and the trial would be an exercise in futility. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider that the offenses were non-compoundable and had a significant social impact. The Supreme Court reiterated that a settlement between the parties does not necessarily mean there is no chance of conviction, as the prosecution can still prove the case through other evidence. 3. Seriousness and gravity of the offenses under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code: The Supreme Court highlighted that offenses under Section 307 (attempt to murder) are serious and have a substantial impact on society. Such offenses are generally treated as crimes against society rather than individual disputes. The Court criticized the High Court for not scrutinizing the entire conspectus of facts and for not considering the gravity of the offenses and their social impact. 4. Distinction between personal/private wrongs and social wrongs: The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between personal/private wrongs and social wrongs. It stated that while the High Court can quash proceedings in cases predominantly civil in nature, it should not do so in cases involving serious offenses with a social impact. The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider this distinction and mechanically quashed the FIR based on the compromise. 5. Applicability of previous Supreme Court decisions: The Supreme Court discussed the apparent conflict between the decisions in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat. It clarified that while the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 to quash proceedings, this power should be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The Court noted that the High Court misapplied the decision in Shiji, which was relevant in cases originating from civil disputes, not in cases involving serious offenses like attempt to murder. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR. It directed that the criminal proceedings against the accused should continue in accordance with the law. The Court reiterated that the power under Section 482 should be exercised cautiously, particularly in cases involving serious and non-compoundable offenses, and emphasized the need to consider the social impact of such offenses.
|
