Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 786 (RAJ)

Pappulal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-13

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - It has been pointed out that both parties belong to same community and village and on account of altercations/ scuffle entered between parties, two cross FIRs bearing No.259/2023 for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 427 308 and 504 of IPC and FIR No.260/2023 for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 307 and 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act came to be registered at Police Station Chhipabarod District Baran. Both petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of both FIRs. 2. It has been pointed out that injuries are not grievous in nature and with the indulgence of Panchs, both parties have mutually settled their inter se dispute and do not want to pursue the proceedings in their respective FIRs in order to maintain their peaceful relation in future. The original compromise executed between the concerned parties including complainant, injured persons have been placed on record. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of case diary does not dispute the nature of injuries and states that there is no grievous injury caused to any of the injured. 4. Legal position as expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments including the celebrated judgment of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] is that though the FIR/criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences may be allowed to be quashed within powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in view of settlement arrived at between parties, nevertheless, criminal proceedings ordinarily should not be quashed in criminal cases involving heinous and serious nature of offence, wherein the crime is against the society and not only against the individual person. However, it has been left open to consider by the Court about the seriousness of offence in case to case, considering the nature of accusations. However, it has been left open to consider by the Court about the seriousness of offence in case to case, considering the nature of accusations. Mere mention of provision of heinous offence in the FIR or charge-sheet would not preclude the High Court to quash the FIR/criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been observed that in the eventuality of seeking quashment of FIR or proceeding thereupon for that nature of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, it would be open for the High Court to examine the seriousness of the offence, coupled with the nature of allegations and sufficiency of the evidence collected as also to consider the other attending & additional relevant facts and circumstances, as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or chances of conviction for alleged offences are bleak and remote. To buttress such findings, it will be apposite to refer relevant paragraphs No.29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in case of Narender Singh v. State of Punjab [reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 ], after following the ratio decidendi of the case of Gian Singh (Supra) and the criminal proceedings in respect of offence under Section 307 of IPC were allowed to be quashed on the basis of settlement arrived at between parties. "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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [ 2022 (14) SCC 531 observed as follows: "12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable." 6. Coming to facts of the present case, considering the nature of injuries suffered by injured persons, the offences may not be treated to be of heinous or serious nature moreso, when the complainant and injured persons do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings in their respective FIRs and in both the cross FIRs, parties have mutually settled their inter se dispute, therefore, in such backdrop of facts, the continuation of prosecution's case in both the impugned FIRs, would be a futile exercise and that will serve no purpose. In such circumstances, this Court finds that it would be justifiable to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIRs, to prevent abuse of the process of law. 7. In view of afore-discussed factual matrix of the present case and in the light of judgments of the Apex Court and Coordinate Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, this Court deems it just and proper to allow both the present miscellaneous petition, in order to prevent abuse of process of the law. 8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and FIRs No.259/2023 & 260/2023 registered at Police Station Chhipabarod District Baran, with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. All other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.