Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1753 (JHR)

S. M. Tanweer v. State of Jharkhand

2018-08-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 16.02.2018 passed in S.T. Case No. 684 of 2016 by learned Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for discharge was dismissed. 3. It has been stated that by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the injury suffered by the husband of the informant was opined to be simple in nature. It has been submitted that the dispute was with respect to a water tank which has been settled between the parties. Referring to the supplementary affidavit, it has been submitted that the compromise was arrived at within three weeks from the date of the incident and therefore applying the principles laid down in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) Crl.L.J. 2436, this Court under its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has the power to quash the entire criminal proceedings for the ends of justice. 4. Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Ranchi and he does not have any grievance if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed and set aside. 5. It appears from the allegations made in the F.I.R. that the tenants of the informant had come with her supporters with an intention to kill the husband of the informant. The allegation has been levelled that the accused persons had assaulted the husband with knife, Rod and Danda. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Lalpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 2014 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 448, 341, 323, 307, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to which cognizance was taken. An application for discharge was preferred by the petitioner which however was rejected on 16.02.2018 by the learned trial court which is the order impugned in the present application. 6. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 448, 341, 323, 307, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to which cognizance was taken. An application for discharge was preferred by the petitioner which however was rejected on 16.02.2018 by the learned trial court which is the order impugned in the present application. 6. It appears that the dispute arose out of uses of water tank, which has been settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Ranchi on such terms and conditions which have been reflected in the settlement itself. It has also been agreed upon by the informant that apart from Lalpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 2014 which is related to present case, another case being Lalpur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2014 shall also be not proceed in view of the compromise so arrived at. It appears that although the learned trial court had noted in the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 that the husband of the opposite party No. 2 had suffered a grievous injury but the said fact has been disputed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and he has produced a copy of the injury report which has been perused. It appears that even the C.T. Scan report shows that the brain scalp were found to be normal and the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. 7. Whether this Court has power to compound the case in a non-compoundable offence, the judgment in the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) cited by the learned senior counsel has been visited and the guidelines which has been laid down for the High Court 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 reads as under :- “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 482 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. 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 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. (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. (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. 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. (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. 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.” 8. Condition (VI) of the said paragraph is with respect to an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. and it has been held that the medical report in respect of the injury suffered by the informant can jointly be the guiding factor and in exercising powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the time of the settlement also plays a crucial role. Taking a cue from the judgment in the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) it appears that the occurrence is said to have been taken place on 02.02.2014 and the matter was compromised on 26.02.2014. Taking a cue from the judgment in the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) it appears that the occurrence is said to have been taken place on 02.02.2014 and the matter was compromised on 26.02.2014. It thus seems that during the pendency of the investigation and immediately after the occurrence had taken place, good sense have been restored between the parties. The medical report also does point to the fact that the victim has suffered simple injury on his person. 9. In view of the judgment in the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) and in view of the fact that the matter having been compromised between the parties and the findings recorded by this Court, the same is a sufficient ground for exercising powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with S.T. Case No. 684 of 2016 including the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for discharge had been rejected, are hereby quashed and set aside.