Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 416 (MP)

Rajeev Singh v. State Of M. P.

2015-04-09

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking relief to quash the FIR registered as Crime No. 54/2008 at Police Station-Ater, District-Bhind, for offences punishable under section 394/34 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of Indian Arms Act and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, the SHO, Police Station-Ater, after receiving a telephonic message, reached at hospital Bhind. He found the complainant/respondent No. 2 Pramod Singh admitted in Surgical Ward No. 1. On his narration Dehati Nalsi No. 0/08 was lodged for offence punishable under section 394/34 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of Indian Arms Act and section 11/13 of M.P. Dacoity Prabhavit Kshetra Act. The complainant was going to village Ridowli along with his nephew Rohit by his motorcycle. When the complainant and his nephew reached near Mia Ka Kuan at about 7:30 P.M., three persons came there on a motorcycle with their faces covered with cloth and they pushed the complainant- Pramod and his nephew, on which Promod and his nephew fell down from the motorcycle. When they reached nearer to the complainant their faces become uncovered. They identified one of them as accused Sanju Singh, who is resident of the same village. Accused Sanju fired a gun shot by a country made pistol. Pradeep asked Sanju what he is doing. On this, Sanju gave a blow to Pramod on his head by the butt of the country made pistol and dragged him towards the Jungle. Other two persons looted his cell phone and five thousand rupees. On hearing the shout of the complainant, Sanju fled by complainant's motorcycle and other two persons fled from spot by the motorcycle by which they had come. However faces of all three persons were covered by cloth but still the complainant could identify one of them as Sanju Singh. But not the other two persons. The complainant and his nephew went to the shop of Munna Singh. From there intimated the incident to the Police Control Room as well as to his home. Thereafter, family members of the complainant came to the shop. 3. Respondent No. 2 Pramod Singh has filed an IA No. 2908/2014, under section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for compromise and for compounding the offence. From there intimated the incident to the Police Control Room as well as to his home. Thereafter, family members of the complainant came to the shop. 3. Respondent No. 2 Pramod Singh has filed an IA No. 2908/2014, under section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for compromise and for compounding the offence. Counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit in this regard. Rohit has also filed an affidavit in this regard. 4. I.A. No. 2904/2014 was sent to Principal Registrar for verification. By Report dated 16-5-2014, Principal Registrar submitted that he is satisfied that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and submitted that such compromise cannot be accepted as it is not justified. He relied on the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 89 in which it is held that :- "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 482 and 320 - Non-compoundable offence under section 307 IPC - Quashment of proceedings on basis of compromise, in present case, held, improper - Offence under section 307 is not a private dispute between parties inter se but is a crime against society - In instant case, injuries inflicted on complainant with sword on forehead, ear-back side of head as well as on left arm were very serious in nature - Complainant was attacked five times by sword out of which two blows were struck on his head - But for timely arrival of his saviors, attack could have continued - High Court not justified in quashing proceedings on basis of compromise arrived at between parties - Impugned judgment set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 read with section 3 - Quashment of offence under based on compromise - Propriety." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the same and by placing a copy of the order passed on 7-4-2015 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C No. 2500/2015, (Sanjeev Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and others) [since reported in 2015(2) MPLJ (Cri.) 502] in which, the FIR registered at Crime No. 01/2014 at Police Station- Deepar, District Datia, and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants for the offence punishable under sections 392, 395, 397, 394 of Indian Penal Code and under section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act pending before the Special Judge, District Datia in SST No. 19/2014, have been quashed against the petitioners claimed that the present case also similar and requested for quashment of FIR. 7. It is further claimed that after the decision of the State of M.P vs. Deepak (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court in a similar case of this Court has allowed a compromise under section 394 of Indian Penal Code in M.Cr.C No. 9227/2012. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition No. 6869/2013 has been filed before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, was dismissed on 10-10-2014. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case also the complaint against the accused can be compounded the offence under section 394 of Indian Penal Code following the law laid down in case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another, reported in (2011) 10 SCC (Cri) 705. The Apex Court has held that :- "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 482 and 320 - Non-compound ability of offence under section 320 - Effect on powers of quashment under section 482 - Held, the same does not by itself determine exercise of inherent powers of High Court under section 482 to quash prosecution - Simply because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 is by itself no reason for High Court to refuse exercise its power under section 482 - That power can be exercised as per settled principles, in cases where, there is no chance of recording conviction against accused and entire exercise of trial is destined to be exercise in futility - Penal Code 1860, section 394." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also reiterated that in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that inherent powers of High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties- such power can be exercised. Social impact of crime in question its individual impact, as decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such case. 10. It would be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has received several injuries and was hospitalized. A motorcycle, cell phone and five thousand rupees was looted in the said incident. Hon'ble the Apex Court has emphatically held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 11. In the present case offence under section 11/13 MPDVPK Act was also registered against the petitioners. In Gian Singh vs. States of Punjab (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in the para 61, which is reproduced here under : "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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. (1) 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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. 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transaction 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 12. This Court in the present case feels that it would be unfair to exercise the inherent powers of High Court to quash proceedings. This Court in the present case feels that it would be unfair to exercise the inherent powers of High Court to quash proceedings. Hon'ble the Apex Court has propounded that the plenitude of power under section 482, by itself makes obligatory for High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. Width and nature of power itself demands that its exercise can be used sparingly and only in cases where High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of clear view that continuance of prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the words of the Apex Court :- "Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situation in which the exercise of power under section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate Court while dealing with a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked." 13. Coming to the case at hand, this Court is of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the robbery for gain which falls under the category of heinous crime. Coming to the case at hand, this Court is of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the robbery for gain which falls under the category of heinous crime. The Special Leave Petition No. 6869/2013 was dismissed by Hon'ble the Apex Court for the reason that it was the crime under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, in which it was the dispute between the husband and wife, during the Diwali festival, the fire was made from pistol accidentally. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak (supra) clearly and unambiguously that :- "Offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code 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 and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of section 307, Indian Penal Code 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, Indian Penal Code 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, Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether much injury is inflicted on the vital/delecate 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 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." 15. 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." 15. It would be pertinent to mention here that while deciding whether to exercise its power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure 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. In the present case, the incident occurred on 20-5-2009 and the compromise petition IA No. 2908/2014 has been filed on 16-4-2014 after about 5 years. Therefore, showing benevolence in exercising the powers favourably for the petitioner is not warranted. In Para 13 of the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak and others reported in 2014 Legal Eagle (SC) 689, it is held that :- "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." 16. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to exercise the inherent power. Accordingly, this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is hereby dismissed.