Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fresh Guidelines On Quashing of Proceedings of A Non-Compoundable Offence On The Basis of Settlement Between The Parties
Fresh Guidelines On Quashing of Proceedings of A Non-Compoundable Offence On The Basis of Settlement Between The Parties
Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
Respondents
JUDGMENT
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1.
The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the
of
FIR
No.121/14.7.2010
registered
under
Sections
Page1
the compromise entered into between the parties, the effect whereof
would be that the petitioners would face trial in the said FIR.
2.
Leave granted.
3.
4.
It may be stated at the outset that the petitioners herein, who are
three in number, have been charged under various provisions of the IPC
including for committing offence punishable under Section 307, IPC i.e.
attempt to commit murder.
the aforesaid FIR, the allegations against the petitioners are that on
9.7.2010 at 7.00 A.M. while respondent No.2 was going on his
motorcycle to bring diesel from village Lapoke, Jasbir Singh, Narinder
Singh both sons of Baldev Singh and Baldev Singh son of Lakha Singh
attacked him and injured him. Respondent No.2 was admitted in Shri
Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. After examination the doctor found
four injuries on his person. Injury No.1 to 3 are with sharp edged
weapons and injury No.4 is simple. From the statement of injured and
MLRs report, an FIR under sections 323/324/34 IPC was registered.
After X-ray report relating to injury No.3, section 307 IPC was added in
the FIR
5.
in the Court against the petitioners and charges have also been framed.
Page2
Now the case is pending before the Ld.Trial Court, Amritsar, for
evidence.
6.
It
is
clear
from the above that three years after the incident, the parties
compromised the matter with intervention of the Panchayat of the
village.
7.
aforesaid criminal petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing
of the said FIR.
Page3
The ld. counsel for the State has supported the aforesaid verdict
of the High Court arguing that since offence under Section 307 is noncompoundable, the respondents could not have been acquitted only
because of the reason that there was a compromise/settlement
between the parties.
respondent-State has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 13
SCC 311 wherein this Court held that since offence under Section 307 is
not compoundable, even when the parties had settled the matter,
compounding of the offence was out of question. Said settlement along
with other extenuating circumstances was only taken as the ground for
reduction of the sentence in the following manner:
We must immediately state that the offence
under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of
Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in
4
Page4
10.
Page5
spot in the heat of the moment inasmuch as both sides were verbally
fighting when the petitioners had struck the victim, this assault was
more of a crime against the individual than against the society at large.
He further submitted that this Court in Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory
through Administrator
11.
We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court
The only
exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed.
Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs.
State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed
and
Page6
12.
At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle distinction
justify
such
exercise
of
power,
although
the
ultimate
Such a
Page7
13.
Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320 and Section 482
of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the Court also described the
extent of power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing the criminal
proceedings in those cases where the parties had settled the matter
although the offences are not compoundable.
was emphasized that the power under Sec. 482 of the Code is not to be
resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the
grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly
8
Page8
and should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted
in any other provision of the Code. The Court also highlighted that in
different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different
ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High
Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of
the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or
(ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.
14.
Page9
Page10
Page11
Page12
Mostly,
punishment
provided
for
committing
offences
is
either
justification
can
be
The
retribution,
Page13
find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while
awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by
any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the
deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly
in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or
depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element
of emotion in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding
factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment
14
Page14
Page15
judgment, it is clear that one finds that counsel for the appellant in that
case had not contested the conviction of the appellant for the offence
under Section 307 IPC, but had mainly pleaded for reduction of
sentence by projecting mitigating circumstances.
21.
Gujral
case
(supra),
FIR
was
lodged
under
sections
investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section
173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that
stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted
the settlement and
judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR
SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under
16
Page16
commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:
Since the offences involved in this case are of
a personal nature and are not offences against the
society, we had enquired with learned counsel
appearing for the parties whether there is any
possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that
due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have
seen reason and have entered into a compromise.
This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307,
IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society.
22.
Page17
Shambhu Kewat & Ors. 2013 (14) SCALE 235, this very Bench of the
Court was faced with the situation where 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.
before the High Court against the order of conviction and sentence of
the Sessions Judge holding the accused persons guilty of the offence
under Section307/34 IPC.
offence under Section 307 IPC were taken note of, noticing 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 High Court was not
justified in accepting the compromise and setting aside the conviction.
While doing so, following discussion ensued:
18
Page18
Page19
24.
Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High
Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the
20
Page20
Constitution of India.
25.
21
Page21
should refrain from doing so. We make it clear that though there would
be a general discussion in this behalf as well, the matter is examined in
the context of offences under Section 307 IPC.
26.
between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say
that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours
and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario,
should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement. The answer
depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse.
The Legislators has categorically recognized that those offences which
are covered by the provisions of section 320 of the Code are
concededly those not only do not fall within the category of heinous
crime but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this
provision recognizes whereas there is a compromise between the
parties the Court is to act at the said compromise and quash the
proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered
within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, High Court is given
power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise
between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is
as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power,
both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of
above.
22
Page22
27.
Court to the effect that offences involved in that case were not offences
against the society. It included charge under Section 307 IPC as well.
However, apart from stating so, there is no detained discussion on this
aspect. Moreover, it is the other factors which prevailed with the Court
to accept the settlement and compound he offence, as noted above
while discussing this case. On the other hand, in Shambhu Kewat
(supra), after referring to some other earlier judgments, this Court
opined that commission of offence under Section 307 IPC would be
crime against the society at large, and not a crime against an individual
only. We find that in most of the cases, this view is taken. Even on first
principle, we find that an attempt to take the life of another person has
to be treated as a heinous crime and against the society.
28.
Page23
Page24
before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go
into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical
evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim.
however,
would
be
examined
along
with
This aspect,
another
important
affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court
to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the
parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served
in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would
end in acquittal, in any case.
30.
25
Page25
31.
26
Page26
Page27
Page28
29
Page29
33.
recording
of
evidence.
At
this
juncture,
parties
entered
into
As per the
copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the
compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when
respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the
Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the
said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise
and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It
was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony
between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace
and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court
should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.
34.
We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which
Page30
We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the
The
evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of
compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the
witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even
though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the
doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become
difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of
conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be
unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors
31
Page31
J.
(A.K.Sikri)
New Delhi,
March 27, 2014
32
Page32