advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Sec.307/34 I.P.C. - Not Compoundable - petition to quash the case under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. - High court allowed the same - Apex court held that 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. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above, that offence under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute between the parties inter se but is held to be a crime against the society. Further, guidelines are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application for quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the issues between themselves. When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case to the facts of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the complainant were very serious in nature. The accused was armed with sword and had inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as well as on the left arm of the complainant. The complainant was attacked five times with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were struck on his head. But for the timely arrival of brother of the complainant and another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant, the attacks could have continued. In a case like this, the High Court should not have accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2014 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013] |STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |DEEPAK & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) = 2014- Sept. month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41903

  Sec.307/34 I.P.C. - Not Compoundable - petition to quash the case under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. on compromise - High court allowed the same - Apex court held that  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. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet  to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the  High  Court  can  show benevolence in exercising its  powers  favourably,  but  after  prima  facie assessment of the  circumstances/material  mentioned  above.   On  the  other hand, where the  prosecution  evidence  is  almost  complete  or  after  the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,  normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power  under  Section  482
of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would  be  in  a  position  to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to  whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly,  in  those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial  court  and  the matter is at the appellate stage before  the  High  Court,  mere  compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the  same  resulting  in acquittal of the offender who  has  already  been  convicted  by  the  trial court. Here charge is  proved  under  Section  307  IPC  and  conviction  is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question  of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above,  that  offence under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute  between  the  parties
inter se but is held to be a crime against the society. Further,  guidelines are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application  for quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the  issues between themselves. When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case  to  the  facts of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the  complainant were very serious in nature. The  accused  was  armed  with  sword  and had inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as  well  as  on the left arm of the complainant. The complainant  was  attacked  five  times with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were  struck  on his head. But for the timely arrival  of  brother  of  the  complainant  and another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant,  the  attacks  could
have continued. In a  case  like  this,  the  High  Court  should  not  have accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.=

The  said  petition  was  filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  (hereinafter  referred
to as the “Code”) for compounding/quashing of criminal  proceedings  arising
out of Crime No. 171/13 under Section 307/34 of  IPC  registered  at  Police
Station  Kotwali,  District   Vidisha   (M.P.)   and   consequent   criminal
proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 582 of 2013 pending before  the  Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha. =

The High Court has accepted the said compromise after  taking  note  of  the
submissions made before it at the Bar, and the  fact  that  the  complainant
had also submitted that he did not wish to prosecute the accused persons  as
he had settled all  the  disputes  amicably  with  them.  For  quashing  the
proceedings, the High Court has referred to the judgment of  this  Court  in
Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. ; 2011 (10) SCC 705.=

         Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category  of  heinous
and serious offences and therefore are 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.  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  proving  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. Medical report in respect  of  injuries  suffered  by  the  victim  can
generally be the guiding factor.
On the basis of this prima facie  analysis,
the High Court can examine as to whether there is a  strong  possibility  of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the  former
case it can refuse to accept the  [pic]settlement  and  quash  the  criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the  High
Court  to  accept  the  plea  compounding  the  offence  based  on  complete
settlement between the parties.
At this stage, the Court can also be  swayed
by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going  to  result  in
harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. 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.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet  to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the  High  Court  can  show
benevolence in exercising its  powers  favourably,  but  after  prima  facie
assessment of the  circumstances/material  mentioned  above.  
On  the  other
hand, where the  prosecution  evidence  is  almost  complete  or  after  the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,  normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power  under  Section  482
of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would  be  in  a  position  to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to  whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. 
Similarly,  in  those
cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial  court  and  the
matter is at the appellate stage before  the  High  Court,  mere  compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the  same  resulting  in
acquittal of the offender who  has  already  been  convicted  by  the  trial
court. Here charge is  proved  under  Section  307  IPC  and  conviction  is
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question  of
sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”


It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above,  that  offence
under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute  between  the  parties
inter se but is held to be a crime against the society.
Further,  guidelines
are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application  for
quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the  issues
between themselves.

When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case  to  the  facts
of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the  complainant
were very serious in nature.
The  accused  was  armed  with  sword  and  had
inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as  well  as  on
the left arm of the complainant.
The complainant  was  attacked  five  times
with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were  struck  on
his head. But for the timely arrival  of  brother  of  the  complainant  and
another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant,  the  attacks  could
have continued.
In a  case  like  this,  the  High  Court  should  not  have
accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this  appeal  is  allowed  and  the
order of the High  Court  is  set  aside.  The  concerned  Magistrate  shall
proceed with the trial of the case.

2014- Sept. month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41903
                                                   NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2014
     [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013]




|STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                  |.....APPELLANT(S)              |
|VERSUS                                   |                               |
|DEEPAK & ORS.                            |.....RESPONDENT(S)             |


                               J U D G M E N T


A.K. SIKRI, J.

      Leave granted.

As counsel for both the parties expressed their  willingness  to  argue  the
matter finally at this stage, we heard the appeal finally.

This appeal is  preferred  by  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  against  the
judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the High Court in the  petition
filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The  said  petition  was  filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  (hereinafter  referred
to as the “Code”) for compounding/quashing of criminal  proceedings  arising
out of Crime No. 171/13 under Section 307/34 of  IPC  registered  at  Police
Station  Kotwali,  District   Vidisha   (M.P.)   and   consequent   criminal
proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 582 of 2013 pending before  the  Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha. The FIR was  registered  at  the  instance  of
Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant).

The  complainant  (respondent  No.3),  Deepak  Ghenghat   s/o   Laxminarayan
Ghenghat, had alleged that on 11.3.2013 at about 9.45  p.m.,  while  he  was
going to Baraipura  Chauraha  for  buying  Gutkha  for  his  mother,  Deepak
Nahariya and Mukesh Nahariya (respondent Nos.1 and 2) met him  near  Sweepar
Mohalla, Gali No. 1.  On being asked  by  respondent  No.1,  in  an  abusive
language, as to  where  he  was  proceeded  to,  the  complainant  protested
against the use of such foul language.  At this, respondent  No.1  took  out
the sword  which  he  was  carrying  and  with  an  intention  to  kill  the
complainant, he inflicted a blow on  his  forehead  by  shouting  'you  have
lodged the report  against  my  elder  brother,  today  I  will  kill  you'.
Respondent No.1, thereafter, inflicted blows above the ear on the back  side
of the head and on the left arm.  When  the  complainant  informed  that  he
would lodge a report with the Police, respondent No.2  caught  hold  of  him
and threatened that if he lodges the report,  then  he  would  not  let  the
complainant  reside  in  the  Mohalla.   By  that  time,  brother   of   the
complainant  Suraj  and  one  Preeti  reached  the  spot  and  rescued   the
complainant.

On the same date, the complainant lodged F.I.R. No. 171 of  2013  at  Police
Station Kotwali, Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence  punishable  under  Sections
307 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. which  triggered  the  criminal
investigation  and  complainant  Deepak  Ghenghat  was  sent   for   medical
examination. Thereafter,  on  12.3.2013  police  reached  on  the  spot  and
prepared the spot  map,  recorded  the  statement  of  the  witnesses  under
Section 161, arrested the accused persons and seized certain articles.

On  14.4.2013,  articles  which  were  seized   were   sent   for   forensic
examination. After due and proper investigation charge sheet  was  filed  on
6.4.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 307  of  IPC  read  with
Section 34 of IPC. The respondent filed Misc.  Criminal  Case  No.  3527  of
2013 before the High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Bench  at  Gwalior  under
Section 482 of Cr. PC for quashing the criminal proceedings, arising out  of
the F.I.R. No. 171/2013 against the respondent on the basis  of  compromise,
registered on 11.3.2013 under Sections 307 of IPC read with  Section  34  of
IPC.

The High Court has accepted the said compromise after  taking  note  of  the
submissions made before it at the Bar, and the  fact  that  the  complainant
had also submitted that he did not wish to prosecute the accused persons  as
he had settled all  the  disputes  amicably  with  them.  For  quashing  the
proceedings, the High Court has referred to the judgment of  this  Court  in
Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. ; 2011 (10) SCC 705.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State is  before  us  in  the  present
appeal. It is primarily submitted by the learned counsel for the State  that
the judgment in the case of Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. (supra) is  not  applicable
to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the incident  in  question  had
its genesis and origin in a civil dispute between  the  parties  and  having
regard to the same the Court had accepted the  settlement  and  quashed  the
proceedings when it  found  that  parties  had  resolved  the  said  dispute
between them. It was pleaded that on  the  contrary,  in  the  present  case
accused  persons  are  habitual  offenders  and  they  had  threatened   the
complainant and extracted the  compromise  which  was  not  voluntary.   The
learned counsel also referred to the injuries suffered  by  the  complainant
which are described in the report as a result  of  the  medical  examination
carried  out  on  the  person  of  the  complainant  immediately  after  the
incident. He pleaded that the offence under Section 307 of  IPC  was,  prima
facie, made out and for such a heinous crime the High Court should not  have
exercised its discretion under Section 482 of the Cr.  PC  and  quashed  the
proceedings as the offence in question was  non-compoundable  under  Section
320 of the Code.

The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted  that  since
the parties had settled the matter, the High Court had rightly accepted  the
compromise between the parties. This action of the High Court was  justified
as parties had buried the hatchet and wanted to leave peacefully.  He  thus,
pleaded that this Court should not interfere with the aforesaid exercise  of
discretion by the High Court.


After examining the facts of this case and the medical  record,  we  are  of
the opinion that it was not a case where High Court should have quashed  the
proceedings in exercise of its discretion under Section 482 of the Code.  We
may, at the outset, refer to the judgment of this Court in Gulabdas  &  Ors.
v. State of M.P.; 2011 (12) SCALE 625 wherein following view was taken:-
“7.   In the light of the submissions made at  the  bar  the  only  question
that falls for determination is whether the prayer for  composition  of  the
offence under Section  307  IPC  could  be  allowed  having  regard  to  the
compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is  in  the  negative.
This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled  that  offences  which  are
not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  cannot
be allowed to be compounded even if there  is  any  settlement  between  the
complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in  this
regard may be made to the decisions of this Court  in  Ram  Lal  &  Anr.  v.
State of J&K; (1999) 2 SCC 213 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya  Pradesh;
(2008) 15 SCC 667. We  have,  therefore,  no  hesitation  in  rejecting  the
prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos 2 &  3
stand convicted”.


A similar situation, as in the present case, was found  to  have  arisen  in
the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149.  In  that
case also, the High Court had accepted the settlement  between  the  parties
in an offence under Section 307  read  with  Section  34  IPC  and  set  the
accused at large by acquitting them.  The settlement was arrived  at  during
the  pendency  of  appeal  before  the  High  Court  against  the  order  of
conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge holding  the  accused  persons
guilty of the offence under Sections 307/34  IPC.   Some  earlier  cases  of
compounding of offence under Section 307 IPC were taken  note  of,  noticing
that under certain circumstances, the Court  had  approved  the  compounding
whereas in certain other cases such a course of  action  was  not  accepted.
In that case, this  Court  took  the  view  that  the  High  Court  was  not
justified in accepting the compromise  and  setting  aside  the  conviction.
While doing so, following discussion ensued:
“12. We find in this case, such a situation does not  arise. In the  instant
case, the incident had occurred on 30-10-2008. The  trial  court  held  that
the accused persons, with common intention, went to  the  shop  the  injured
Abdul Rashid on that day armed with iron rod and a strip  of  iron  and,  in
furtherance of their common intention, had caused serious  injuries  on  the
body of Abdul Rashid, of which Injury 4 was on his  head,  which  was  of  a
serious nature.

13. Dr Rakesh Sharma, PW 5, had stated that out of the  injuries  caused  to
Abdul Rashid, Injury 4 was an  injury  on  the  head  and  that  injury  was
‘grievous and fatal for life’. PW 8, Dr Uday  Bhomik,  also  opined  that  a
grievous injury was caused on the head of Abdul Rashid. Dr   Uday  conducted
the operation on injuries of  Abdul  Rashid  as  a  neurosurgeon  and  fully
supported the opinion expressed by PW 5 Dr   Rakesh  Sharma  that  Injury  4
was ‘grievous and fatal for life’.

14. We notice that the gravity of the injuries was  taken  note  of  by  the
Sessions Court and it  had  awarded  the  sentence  of  10  years’  rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC,  but  not  by
the High Court.  The  High  Court  has  completely  overlooked  the  various
principles laid down by this Court  in  Gian  Singh  v.   State  of  Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and has committed a mistake in taking the view  that,  the
injuries were caused on the body of Abdul Rashid in a fight occurred on  the
spur in the heat of the moment. It  has  been  categorically  held  by  this
Court in Gian Singh  that  the  Court,  while  exercising  the  power  under
Section 482 CrPC, must have ‘due regard to the nature  and  gravity  of  the
crime’ and  ‘the  societal  impact’.  Both  these  aspects  were  completely
overlooked by the High Court. The High Court in a  cursory  manner,  without
application of mind, blindly accepted the  statement  of  the  parties  that
they had settled their disputes and differences and took the  view  that  it
was a crime against ‘an individual’, rather than  against  ‘the  society  at
large’.

15. We are not  prepared  to  say  that  the  crime  alleged  to  have  been
committed by the accused persons was a crime against an individual,  on  the
other hand it was a crime against the society  at  large.  Criminal  law  is
designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is  the
regulation of  conduct  and  activities  within  the  society.  Why  Section
307 IPC is held to be non-compoundable, is because the Code  has  identified
which conduct  should  be  brought  within  the  ambit  of  non-compoundable
offences. Such provisions are not meant just to protect the  individual  but
the society as a whole. The High Court was not right  in  thinking  that  it
was only an injury  to  the  person  and  since  the  accused  persons  (sic
victims) had received the monetary compensation and settled the matter,  the
crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system  has  a  larger
objective to achieve, that is, safety and protection of the people at  large
and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but  to  the  individuals
at large so that such crimes would  not  be  committed  by  [pic]anyone  and
money would not  be  a  substitute  for  the  crime  committed  against  the
society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the  present,  will
leave a  wrong  impression  about  the  criminal  justice  system  and  will
encourage  further  criminal  acts,  which  will   endanger   the   peaceful
coexistence and welfare of the society at large.”
                                                         (emphasis supplied)



We would like to mention at this stage that in  some  cases  offences  under
Section 307 IPC are allowed to be compounded, whereas in  some  other  cases
it is held to be contrary.  This dichotomy was taken note  of  by  referring
to those judgments, in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of  Punjab
& Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, and by  reconciling  those  judgments,  situations
and circumstances were discerned where  compounding  is  to  be  allowed  or
refused.  To  put  it  simply,  it  was  pointed  out  as  to   under   what
circumstances the  Courts  had  quashed  the  proceedings  acting  upon  the
settlement arrived at between the parties on the one hand and what were  the
reasons which had persuaded the Court not to  exercise  such  a  discretion.
After  thorough  and  detailed  discussion  on  various  facets  and   after
revisiting the entire law on the subject, following principles  have  culled
out in the said decision:
“29.  In view of the aforesaid discussion,  we  sum  up  and  lay  down  the
following principles by which the High  Court  would  be  guided  in  giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising  its
power under Section 482 of the  Code  while  accepting  the  settlement  and
quashing  the  proceedings  or  refusing  to  accept  the  settlement   with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. 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  [pic]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.

29.2. When the parties  have  reached  the  settlement  and  on  that  basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding  factor
in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an  opinion  on  either
of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not  to  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. Similarly, for  the  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.

29.4. On the other hand, those  criminal  cases  having  overwhelmingly  and
predominantly 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.

29.5. While exercising its powers, 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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category  of  heinous
and serious offences and therefore are 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.  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  proving  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. Medical report in respect  of  injuries  suffered  by  the  victim  can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie  analysis,
the High Court can examine as to whether there is a  strong  possibility  of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the  former
case it can refuse to accept the  [pic]settlement  and  quash  the  criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the  High
Court  to  accept  the  plea  compounding  the  offence  based  on  complete
settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be  swayed
by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going  to  result  in
harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. 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.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet  to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the  High  Court  can  show
benevolence in exercising its  powers  favourably,  but  after  prima  facie
assessment of the  circumstances/material  mentioned  above.  On  the  other
hand, where the  prosecution  evidence  is  almost  complete  or  after  the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,  normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power  under  Section  482
of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would  be  in  a  position  to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to  whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly,  in  those
cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial  court  and  the
matter is at the appellate stage before  the  High  Court,  mere  compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the  same  resulting  in
acquittal of the offender who  has  already  been  convicted  by  the  trial
court. Here charge is  proved  under  Section  307  IPC  and  conviction  is
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question  of
sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”


It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above,  that  offence
under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute  between  the  parties
inter se but is held to be a crime against the society. Further,  guidelines
are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application  for
quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the  issues
between themselves.

When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case  to  the  facts
of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the  complainant
were very serious in nature. The  accused  was  armed  with  sword  and  had
inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as  well  as  on
the left arm of the complainant. The complainant  was  attacked  five  times
with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were  struck  on
his head. But for the timely arrival  of  brother  of  the  complainant  and
another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant,  the  attacks  could
have continued. In a  case  like  this,  the  High  Court  should  not  have
accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this  appeal  is  allowed  and  the
order of the High  Court  is  set  aside.  The  concerned  Magistrate  shall
proceed with the trial of the case.

                             .............................................J.
                                                            (J. CHELAMESWAR)



                             .............................................J.
                                                                (A.K. SIKRI)

New Delhi;
September 10, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.