Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1017 (MP)

Hasib Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-09-24

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. In this petition filed under section 482, CrPC invoking inherent powers of this Court, applications bearing I.A. No.1225/2015 and I.A. No.1226/2015 are moved for compounding the offence punishable under section 498A/34 of IPC which is non-compoundable offence as per section 320 CrPC. 2. The brief facts leading to the instant litigation are stated as under : “Marriage between Petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife was solemnized on 24.5.2000. It is alleged that the family members of the Petitioner No.1/husband started harassing and assaulting Respondent No.2/wife for dowry. The copy of FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the respondents attempted to burn the body of the Respondent No.2/wife by pouring kerosene oil, where after she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Even after the alleged incident, dowry demands and threats to burn the body of respondent No.2/wife continued which led to the registration of the FIR bearing Crime No.92/2006 on 25.3.2006 under section 498A and 34 IPC. The petitioners suffered conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A and 34 IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine by the learned trial Court. The matter is pending in shape of appeal before the learned ASJ, Sironj as Criminal Appeal No.110/2014. At this stage the rival parties have settled their disputes against each other and wish to live together peacefully as husband and wife.” 2.1 The statements of the rival parties, (all the accused and as well as the complainant), are recorded, which disclose that parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution (appellate stage) as they have settled their scores against each other. The genuineness of the statements of the rival parties has been verified by the Principal Registrar in the note-sheet dated 11.8.2015, which is on record. 3. The law with respect to the powers of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has evolved through catena of judicial pronouncements by the apex Court. While laying down the guiding principles, Apex Court held that inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 CrPC are distinct and different from the powers given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under section 320 CrPC and have to be exercised with great caution and circumspection to secure the ends of justice, and prevent abuse of the process of any Court. {See : State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ (1977)2 SCC 699 ]; Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1990 Supp. SCC 681]; Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee [ (1990)2 SCC 437 ]; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 222]; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992)4 SCC 305 ] Dharampal v. Ramshri [ (1993)1 SCC 435 ]; CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Limited [(1996)5 SCC591]; Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. [ (1999)6 SCC 146 ]; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000)2 SCC 636 ]; Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar [(200110 SCC 504]; State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [ (2002)3 SCC 89 ]; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [ (2003)4 SCC 675 ]; Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [ (2006)9 SCC 255 ]; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [ (2008)4 SCC 582 ]; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI [ (2008)9 SCC 677 ]; Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008)15 SCC 671]; Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. [ (2008)15 SCC 667 ]; Manoj Sharma v. State [(2008)16 SCC 1]; CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad [ (2009)6 SCC 351 ]; Rumi Dhar v. State of WestBengal [ (2009)6 SCC 364 ]; Devendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2009)7 SCC 495 ]; Sushil Suri v. CBI [ (2011)5 SCC 708 ]; Shiji v. Radhika [ (2011)10 SCC 705 ]; Rajiv Saxena v. State [ (2012)5 SCC 627 ]; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012)10 SCC 303 ]; Ashok Sadarangani v. Union of India [ (2012)11 SCC 321 ]; Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat [ (2012)12 SCC 401 ]; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2014)6 SCC 466 ]; State of M.P. v. Deepak (2014)10 SCC 285 ]; Manohar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2014 SC3649]; Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007)4 CTC 769]}. 4. Thus, the law laid by the apex Court is summarized as under. The following guiding principles can be deduced from the various judicial pronouncements supra. These principles are though not exhaustive but elucidative for appropriate adjudication of the applications for compounding of non-compoundable offences, by invoking inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. 4. Thus, the law laid by the apex Court is summarized as under. The following guiding principles can be deduced from the various judicial pronouncements supra. These principles are though not exhaustive but elucidative for appropriate adjudication of the applications for compounding of non-compoundable offences, by invoking inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. 4.1 Nature and gravity of the offence The offences as provided under Indian Penal Code and other special statues can be broadly divided into the following two categories : “(A) The minor offences and offences bearing civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute like those pertaining to property disputes between close relations etc., which have a belaboured dimension of criminal liability. (B) The offences involving mental depravity/moral turpitude, like murder, rape, highway robbery, dacoity, etc., offences against the State enshrined in Chapter VII of IPC (relating to army, navy and air force) and socio-economic offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. which are based on the principles of strict liability and presumption of guilt are heinous offences which are serious in nature. The impact of these offences visits not only the victim but also the society at large with adverse consequences. Thus, ordinarily, such offences ought not to be permitted to be compounded. (C) Some of the offences affecting the human body as contained in Chapter XVI of IPC though fall in the category of heinous and serious offences can be considered as exceptions to the general rule. In cases of sudden quarrel/altercation between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence affecting human body in shape of attempt to murder under section 307 IPC or any other serious/non-compoundable offence. Therefore, only because FIR/charge-sheet incorporates such an offence should not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 CrPC filed for seeking permission for settlement between the parties. Therefore, only because FIR/charge-sheet incorporates such an offence should not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 CrPC filed for seeking permission for settlement between the parties. The following elements may be examined for striking a delicate balance between the two conflicting interests : (i) Nature and gravity of the offence; (ii) Circumstances leading to the commission of the offence; (iii) Nature of the injury/ies sustained; (iv) Whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/non-vital part of the body; (v) Weapon used; (vi) Whether alleging of any graver offence is for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to establish prima facie case; (vii) Willingness of the parties to settle their dispute/s against each other and the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them and would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, etc.” 4.2 Society vis-à-vis individual. The repercussions of the commission of the offences must be examined on the basis of the effects caused on the society at large and against an individual/victim or the family of the victim. The offences which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society must not be ordinarily allowed to be compounded. 4.3 Stage of settlement The stage/timing of the settlement plays a crucial role. In the cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence where the matter is still under investigation and even the charge-sheet has not been filed or where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, liberal view may be adopted based on benevolence in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. On the contrary, in the cases involving heinous and serious offences where prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, or where the conviction is already recorded by the trial Court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, the inherent powers should be exercised sparingly as the convict has been found guilty of the crime. 4.4 Effects of continuation of criminal proceedings It should also be examined 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 case/s. In other words, considerations should be based on 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 5. The factual matrix herein reveals that rival parties are members of the same family closely related to each other. It is common knowledge that when offences arise from dispute between members of same family, the genesis and cause of the same more often than not is based on impulse than intent. Thus, it would be futile and rather vexatious to allow the present proceedings even at the appellate stage to continue, since it will lead to abuse of the process of Court. 6. This Court has duly considered the fact that in the instant case proceedings in the appeal against conviction are pending before learned ASJ, Sironj. However, looking to the facts and circumstances involved herein and that good sense has prevailed between the parties, allowing settlement between the parties even at the appellate stage would be in the interest of justice and to eschew discord and disharmony on the matrimonial front. 7. In view of the above, I.A. No.1225/2015 and I.A. No.1226/2015 filed under section 320 CrPC are allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.92/06 Police Station Sironj, District Vidisha and the consequential prosecution (at appellate stage) in connection with offence/s under section 498A of IPC pending against petitioners is quashed. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. 9. No cost. ..........