Full Judgment Text
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.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2) As counsel for both the parties expressed their willingness to
argue the matter finally at this stage, we heard the appeal finally.
3) 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.
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 1 of 13
Page 1
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).
4) 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
JUDGMENT
(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,
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 2 of 13
Page 2
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.
5) 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,
JUDGMENT
recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161,
arrested the accused persons and seized certain articles.
6) 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
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 3 of 13
Page 3
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.
7) 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.
8) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State is before us in the
JUDGMENT
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
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 4 of 13
Page 4
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.
9) The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted
that since the parties had settled the matter, the High Court had
JUDGMENT
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.
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 5 of 13
Page 5
10) 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”.
JUDGMENT
11) 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
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 6 of 13
Page 6
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.
JUDGMENT
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
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 7 of 13
Page 7
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
JUDGMENT
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)
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 8 of 13
Page 8
12) 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
JUDGMENT
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
Code, the High Court has inherent
power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 9 of 13
Page 9
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.
JUDGMENT
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
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 10 of 13
Page 10
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
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
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 11 of 13
Page 11
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.”
13) 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.
14) 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
JUDGMENT
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
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 12 of 13
Page 12
of the Code.
15) 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.
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 13 of 13
Page 13