Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1483 (RAJ)

Lalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 26.6.2015 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, Distt. Pali in Sessions Case No. 11/2015 - State of Rajasthan v. Laluram & Ors., whereby, the application filed by the petitioners and the complainant for terminating the proceedings on the basis of compromise has been rejected. 2. The trial court has rejected the application while observing that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is non compoundable and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be terminated on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in respect of the same incident, cross cases have been registered and in the case against the accused petitioners, they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 307/149 IPC and the complainant party was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 323 IPC. It is contended that the cross case lodged at the instance of the accused petitioners has already been decided on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties as the offences involved in the same were compoundable. It is also contended that in fact the dispute between the petitioners was in respect of dairy elections and in a free fight between the parties, some persons had received injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the statement of the complainant and the injured have been recorded by the trial court in the above mentioned sessions case, wherein, the complainant and the injured have not named any person as to who has inflicted the grievous injury upon the injured. It is argued that the prosecution witnesses, in their statements, have not named any person as aggressor and stated that they do not know who has inflicted the injuries upon the injured person as there was a large crowd. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that even on the basis of the evidence adduced in the matter, the petitioners cannot be punished for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that even on the basis of the evidence adduced in the matter, the petitioners cannot be punished for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is also contended that when the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably, it is a fit case, wherein, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for terminating the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2012(4) Cr.L.R. (SC) 883; Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 351; Yogendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2014(4) Cr.L.R. (SC) 1258 and on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Basti Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2015(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 830 as well as Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 2970/2014). 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426, has held as below:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 6. In Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:- "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. In Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:- "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 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 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 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, 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 is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later 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." (emphasis supplied). 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. 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 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." 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the matter between the petitioners and the complainant party have already been amicably settled and on the basis of the said compromise, the respondent No.2 and the other persons have already been acquitted by the competent criminal court in the case filed at the instance of the accused petitioners. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are terminated. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the dispute between the accused petitioners and the complainant party was in respect of dairy elections. In a free fight, both the parties attacked each other and have received injuries. However, one of the member of the complainant party has received serious injuries. In the statements recorded before the trial court, the prosecution witnesses have not named any person as to who has inflicted grievous injury on injured Deva Ram son of Hema Ram. In a free fight, both the parties attacked each other and have received injuries. However, one of the member of the complainant party has received serious injuries. In the statements recorded before the trial court, the prosecution witnesses have not named any person as to who has inflicted grievous injury on injured Deva Ram son of Hema Ram. In fact, all the witnesses have specifically stated that they do not know as to who has inflicted the injury to whom as there was a large crowd. 10. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial court in Sessions Case No.11/2015 - State of Rajasthan v. Laluram & Ors., this court is of the opinion that there are very little chances of conviction of the petitioners for the offences, for which, they have been charged. Moreover, when the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant party has already been resolved and on account of that the complainant party has already been acquitted from the charges levelled against them in the cross case, it is a fit case, wherein, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of terminating the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. 11. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, Distt. Pali in Sessions Case No.11/2015 - State of Rajasthan v. Laluram & Ors. for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 307/149 IPC are hereby quashed. Stay petition is disposed of.