9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 690 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction of High Court - whether FIR and the consequential proceedings alleging Compoundable or non-compoundable offences could be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the Parties? - HELD THAT - The ultimate exercise of discretion u/s 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution is with the Court which has to exercise such jurisdiction in the facts of each case. It has been explained that the said power is in no way limited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. We are unable to disagree with such statement of law. In any event, in this case, we are only required to consider whether the High Court had exercised its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. legally and correctly. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The FiIR, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the FIR was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the FIR, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the ld Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Markandey Katju, J . - I respectfully agree with my ld brother Hon'ble Kabir J. that the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed, the question may have to be decided in some subsequent decision or decisions (preferably by a larger Bench) as to which non-compoundable cases can be quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution on the basis that the parties have entered into a compromise. There can be no doubt that a case u/s 302 IPC or other serious offences like those u/s 395, 307 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot. Shri B.B. Singh, ld Counsel for the respondent has rightly expressed his concern that the decision in B.S. Joshi's case 2003 (3) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT should not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a compromise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual. Therefore, Appeal is to be allowed and the criminal proceedings in question are to be quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an FIR under Sections 420/468/471/34/120B IPC can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution when the accused and the complainant have compromised and settled the matter. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of FIR under Sections 420/468/471/34/120B IPC: The core issue in this appeal was whether an FIR under Sections 420/468/471/34/120B IPC can be quashed either under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution when the accused and the complainant have settled the matter. The appellant argued that the High Court should have quashed the FIR based on the compromise between the parties, while the respondent contended that certain offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC and thus cannot be quashed. 2. Precedent from B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana: The Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, where it was held that the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, even if the offences are non-compoundable. The Court emphasized that the exercise of such power depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 3. Arguments and Counterarguments: The appellant relied heavily on the B.S. Joshi case, arguing that the High Court should have exercised its discretion to quash the FIR. The respondent, represented by Mr. B.B. Singh, argued that the specific provisions of the Code regarding the compounding of offences indicate which offences may be compromised, and the decision in B.S. Joshi requires reconsideration. The respondent cited various cases to support the argument that the High Court's power to quash should be limited by Section 320 CrPC. 4. High Court's Discretion and Pragmatism: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR was not pragmatic given the private nature of the dispute and the settlement between the parties. The Court emphasized that the exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 is discretionary and should be exercised pragmatically based on the facts of each case. 5. Inherent Powers of the High Court: The judgment highlighted that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not limited by Section 320 CrPC. The Court reiterated that these powers are meant to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, even if it means quashing non-compoundable offences in exceptional cases. 6. Separate Concurring Judgment: A separate concurring judgment emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and restraint. It acknowledged that while certain offences cannot be compounded under Section 320 CrPC, the High Court can still quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in rare and exceptional cases to secure the ends of justice. The judgment called for future guidelines to ensure uniformity in the exercise of this discretion. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. The Court recognized the necessity of judicial discretion in quashing non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution when it serves the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving private disputes and settlements.
|
