Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 99 (ALL)

RAMDHANI PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-01-09

KRISHNA MURARI, RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Sri Manoj Kumar Chandel for the complainant-respondent No. 4. 2. Petitioner, sole accused named in the F.I.R. registered as case crime No. 432 of 2016 under Section 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the same. The first information was lodged by the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sadhana Gautam who happens to be the daughter of the accused petitioner on the allegations that on 14.10.2016 her father after consuming liquor abused and assaulted and tried to kill her and turned her out of the house. It was further pleaded that her father has illicit relation with other women who misled her father to occupy the residential house forcefully after disowning her and her brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a family dispute when the respondent No. 4 came from her in-laws house to her matrimonial home, with her father and she out of rage lodged the First Information Report but subsequently, she gave an affidavit before the Circle Officer as well as Senior Superintendent of Police that she had lodged the First Information Report on account of some family dispute and later on a compromise has been arrived at and she does not want to pursue the complaint any further. 3. It is an admitted position that the investigation is still pending and the police has not submitted final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by the complainant-respondent No. 4 stating that there was some dispute between the petitioner and her on account of which she lodged F.I.R. but with the intervention of other family members, the dispute is settled and she does not want to press her complaint and prosecute her father. 5. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by the complainant-respondent No. 4 stating that there was some dispute between the petitioner and her on account of which she lodged F.I.R. but with the intervention of other family members, the dispute is settled and she does not want to press her complaint and prosecute her father. 5. The question arising for consideration is even though the allegations made in the First Information Report discloses commission of a cognizable offence but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the complainant herself has come forward to state that the first information was lodged on account of some family dispute and thereafter, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of other family members and she does not intend to proceed with any criminal proceedings against the petitioner who is her father, the investigation to be permitted to continue or the impugned First Information Report is liable to be quashed, as prayed by the petitioner. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question as to whether quashing of the proceedings under Section 307 I.P.C. in exercise of its inherent power on the basis of compromise between the parties even though offence is non-compoundable relying upon the earlier decisions in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 LawSuit(SC) 202, has held as under : “26. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes 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. 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. 27. In the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra), observations of this 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. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the Court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel 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 under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge-sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. 29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173,Cr.P.C. is also placed 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. This aspect, however, would be examined alongwith another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined alongwith another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in 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.” It may also be relevant to quote paragraph 31 of the said report : “31. 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: (I) 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. (II) 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. (III) 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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) 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. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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. (V) 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. (VI) 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. 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. (VII) 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 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. 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. In the backdrop of the above settled legal position by judicial pronoucements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we proceed to examine the facts of the case which are as under: 8. First Information Report dated 14.10.2016 was registered under Section 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with the Police Station Gorakhnath, district Gorakhpur by the respondent No. 4, the daughter against the accused petitioner who happens to be her father. Admittedly, the investigation is in the process and has not yet been completed. In the meantime, with the intervention of the other family members, the daughter and the father have arrived at a compromise and an affidavit in this regard was filed by the respondent No. 4 before the Senior Superintendent of Police as well as the Circle Officer. An affidavit to that effect has also been filed in the present proceedings. The medical report, annexed as annexure-2 to this petition, goes to show that there is only one injury, which is simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body. It is to be taken note of that compromise has been arrived at between the parties immediately after the alleged commission of offence. The investigating agency is still at the stage of collecting evidence. In view of the compromise between the parties, there is hardly any chance of any evidence coming forward to support the allegations in the First Information Report. The chance of conviction therefore, appears to be remote and it would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag this proceeding. 9. In the facts and circumstances where there are bleak chances of the investigating agency collecting any material which could be translated into legal evidence so as to establish commission of an offence, the conviction appears to be very remote and bleak. 10. 9. In the facts and circumstances where there are bleak chances of the investigating agency collecting any material which could be translated into legal evidence so as to establish commission of an offence, the conviction appears to be very remote and bleak. 10. Allowing the proceedings to continue in such facts and circumstances would only be an abuse of the process of law. It is no doubt correct that after investigation, the police finding that there is no evidence, may submit a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and no charge-sheet may be filed against the petitioner still Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The subsequent stand taken by the first informant/respondent No. 4 is sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the acquisitions levelled by her against the petitioner without even going into the necessity of collecting material by the investigating agency. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997 Law Suit (SC) 1340, while considering the power of judicial interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as under. “No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial.” 12. The above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court stands attracted with equal force even in the case of an investigation of an alleged offence. No doubt, this power has to be exercised with due care and caution and in extremely deserving cases. 13. The above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court stands attracted with equal force even in the case of an investigation of an alleged offence. No doubt, this power has to be exercised with due care and caution and in extremely deserving cases. 13. When the facts and circumstances emanating from the record of the case in hand are considered in the light of the settled legal proposition on the issue of scope of quashing of the First Information Report, it becomes evident that the First Information Report is a result of the dispute between the family members and a compromise has been arrived at between them immediately after the alleged commission of offence and further the injury inflicted on the complainant is simple in nature and not on a vital part of the body and thus are covered within the four corners of the test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for quashing of the proceedings. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and settled legal position, we are of the view that continuance of the investigation shall amount to abuse of process of law. 15. Writ petition accordingly, stands allowed. First Information Report dated 14.10.2016 registered as case crime No. 0432 of 2016 under Section 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur is hereby quashed. However, We do not make any order as to costs.