Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 201 (RAJ)

Prakash Dhaka v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-22

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 140/2019 at Police Station Kherapa, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 & 323 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2019, complainant-respondent No. 2 lodged the impugned FIR at Police Station Kherapa, District Jodhpur, inter alia alleging that yesterday night a "Jagran" was being organized at Mahadev Temple Narinadi Chandrakh, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, at that time, accused came there with DJ and started playing the same. It is alleged that when the persons objected to it and requested them to stop the DJ, the accused persons attacked them with hockey and iron rods and on account of that he, his brothers Lakharam and Hanuta Ram respondents Nos. 3 & 4 received grievous injuries; his brother Lakha Ram is struggling with his life at M.D.M. Hospital, Jodhpur. 3. On receiving this report, the police registered impugned FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 & 323 IPC. 4. During the course of investigation, the police obtained a medical report regarding the injuries suffered by the injured persons wherein, it is opined that the injury received on the head of injured Lakha Ram is grievous and dangerous to life, therefore, the police added Sections 307 & 325 IPC and the petitioners were arrested. 5. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the impugned FIR on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 6. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the complainant and the accused party appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted the compromise deed, which has been verified by the Investigating Officer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had no intention to kill any of the injured persons. It is further submitted that the incident occurred suddenly due to trivial dispute arose between the parties during the religious function in the Mahadev Temple. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had no intention to kill any of the injured persons. It is further submitted that the incident occurred suddenly due to trivial dispute arose between the parties during the religious function in the Mahadev Temple. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner No. 1 is to the effect that he had inflicted injury on the head of injured with a stick, however, the police did not recover any stick or other weapon at the instance of the petitioner No. 1 and during the course of investigation also, the petitioner No. 1 gave information that he inflicted injury on the head of injured person during the scuffle by a utensil, which was lying in the temple premises. Learned counsel has further submitted that from the above, it is clear that the petitioners had not made any preparation and they had no intention to kill anyone. It is further submitted that in a trivial dispute, which resulted into the scuffle, both the parties received injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that now with the intervention of elder persons of the village, the dispute between the parties has been resolved and both parties have decided to live with harmony, so that their future relation may be improved. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the trivial dispute between the parties has been settled amicably, the impugned FIR may be quashed. It is also submitted that still the investigation is going on in the matter and the police have not filed charge-sheet against any of the petitioners. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this criminal misc. petition and argued that since the petitioners are found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 has verified that the dispute between the parties was of trivial nature and as the compromise has been arrived at between them, the respondents have decided not to press the charges against the petitioners levelled in the impugned FIR so that they can live harmony in future. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426, while defending the power of the High Court in quashing the complaint of the FIR involving is non-compoundable offence has held as under:- "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. 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 pre-dominatingly 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. 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 12. Relying on the judgment of Gian Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (6) SCC 466 has held as under:- "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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. From the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that an FIR registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC can be quashed while taking into consideration certain circumstances, such as the stage of the investigation, nature of injuries sustained and the nature of weapon used. It can also be considered whether the chances of conviction are remote and bleak and the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve in future. 14. It is noticed that the incident took place at a public place, where religious function was going on and many persons had gathered. The dispute between the parties was with regard to playing of DJ, which the accused persons wanted to play whereas, the complainant party was opposing it. 15. It is also noticed that two persons viz. Hanuta Ram and Lakha Ram from complainant party received the injuries and the injuries sustained by Hanuta Ram are simple in nature whereas, as per the medical report, out of two injuries suffered by Lakha Ram, injury No. 1 is grievous in nature and the same is dangerous to life. 16. Though the complainant has alleged that the petitioner No. 1 had inflicted the said injury with a stick, but during interrogation the petitioner No. 1 had admitted that he inflicted injury on the head of Lakha Ram with utensil lying in the temple premises. It is also to be noticed that it is not a case of repetition of injuries and from the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it can be gathered that the incident took place suddenly on a trivial issue. The petitioners and the respondents are natives of the nearby villages and all had gathered for a religious function on the date of incident. 17. The petitioners and the respondents are natives of the nearby villages and all had gathered for a religious function on the date of incident. 17. The petitioners and the complainants are claiming that the dispute between them has been settled amicably and now they wanted to live with harmony in future so that their relations can be continued. The investigation in relation to the impugned FIR is still going on and the police have not filed charge-sheet against anyone of the accused petitioners. 18. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and decided to live with harmony, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the impugned FIR can be quashed in view of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra). 19. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 140/2019 lodged at Police Station Kherapa, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 325 & 307 IPC against the petitioners is hereby quashed.