9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 2047 - HC - Indian LawsQuashing of offenses under Sections 147 148 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which are non-compoundable by the High Court under its inherent powers despite a compromise between the parties - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the complainant himself has expressed that he does not want to prosecute the applicants any further owing to the compromise which they have entered into it would be absolutely futile exercise to burden upon the litigants and parties to the C-482 Application to face the trial and that too which have no logical conclusion and it would be absolutely a exercise of futility. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT has held that the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. As far as composition of offences under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C. is concerned the judgment of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2015 (2) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT has held that though the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is serious enough it will not be compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and it will not oust the powers of the Superior Courts exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to compound the offences depending upon certain terms and conditions laid thereof. Conclusion - The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offenses under Section 320 of the Code. The Compounding Application filed by the parties will stand allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework revolves around Section 482 of the CrPC, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Section 320 of the CrPC lists compoundable offenses, but the offenses in question (Sections 147, 148, 307, and 506 IPC) are not included. The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, and others, which elucidate the circumstances under which the High Court can quash proceedings despite the non-compoundable nature of the offenses. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court emphasized the distinction between the power to compound offenses under Section 320 CrPC and the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. It noted that the latter is broader and can be invoked to quash proceedings if continuing them would result in injustice or abuse of process. The Court highlighted that while heinous crimes with significant societal impact should not be quashed based on settlements, offenses that are primarily private or personal in nature may be considered for quashing if a settlement has been reached. Key Evidence and Findings The Court considered the affidavits and statements from the complainant and the accused, indicating that they had resolved their disputes amicably and did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings further. The complainant explicitly stated that he had no objection to quashing the proceedings. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the principles from the cited precedents to the facts of the case, determining that the offenses in question, while serious, were not of such a heinous nature that they could not be quashed based on a settlement. The Court found that forcing the parties to continue with the proceedings would serve no practical purpose and would not secure the ends of justice. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court addressed the objections raised by the Deputy Advocate General, who argued that the offenses were non-compoundable and should not be quashed. The Court countered this by referring to the Supreme Court's guidance that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC allow for quashing in appropriate cases, even for non-compoundable offenses, if the settlement is genuine and continuing the proceedings would be futile. Conclusions The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the applicants should be quashed in light of the settlement reached between the parties. It determined that continuing the proceedings would not serve the interests of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Court cited the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gian Singh, which states: "The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offenses under Section 320 of the Code." Core Principles Established The judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not limited by the non-compoundability of offenses under Section 320 CrPC. It emphasizes that these powers can be exercised to quash proceedings when this would prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, especially in cases where the offenses are of a private nature and the parties have settled their disputes. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Court allowed the compounding application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants, thereby granting the relief sought under Section 482 CrPC. It concluded that the settlement between the parties justified the quashing of the proceedings, as continuing them would not serve any beneficial purpose.
|
