SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ved Prakash Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 15 … on 22 August, 2019

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1627 of 2019

• Ved Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Parasar Sahu Aged About 39 Years
R/o Chicha, Post Gabdi, P.S. Arjunda, District- Balod, CG
—- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Offricer, Police
Station Daundilohara, District- Balod, CG
2. Veena Sahu W/o Kamalnarayan Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o
H. No. 4 Ward No. 23, Nirmila Department, Dallirajhara, Balod,
District- Balod, CG
—- Respondent

For petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Adv.
For R 1/State : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Adv. General.
For R-2 : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Adv.

Hon’ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
22.08.2019

1. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR

No.101/2019 registered at Police Station Dondi Lohara and all

consequential proceedings therewith in the interest of justice.

2. In brief petitioner’s case is that respondent No. 2/complainant

had lodged a report in PS Dondi Lohara on 16.06.2019 against the

petitioner alleging that on 19.04.2019 and 08.06.2019 petitioner who is

her brother in law (gainer) pressed her breast, gave threats to kill. An

FIR No.0101/2019, under Sections 354, 354-A(1)(i), Indian Penal Code

(hereafter called as ‘IPC’) was registered against him. In the mean time

he and respondent No.2 amicably settled dispute.

3. Counsel for the respondent No.2 conceded that respondent No.2

and petitioner have arrived at compromise.

4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, [(2012) 10 SCC 303)] in para

61, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:

“61. 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 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. 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 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. 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.”

5. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], after

considering the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra), in

para 29.1, Their Lordships summed up 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 to 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 the 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 hand, 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 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 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/delicate 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. 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 to 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.”

6. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, [(2017) 9 SCC 641],

again Their Lordships have had an occasion to consider whether the
High Court can quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings, in

exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point, this Court

summarised the following propositions:

“(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in
the High Court.

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that
a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
(5) The decision as to whether a complaint or first information
report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and
victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking,
not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for
serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a
civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the
exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,
the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the State have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private
disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to
quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system
will weigh in the balance.”

7. In the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar

and Another [AIR 2019 SC 1106] Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para

16.1, which reads as under:-

“16.1 However, the High Court has not at all considered the fact
that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as
per Section 320 CrPC. From the impugned judgments and
orders, it appears that the High Court has not at all considered
the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, more
particularly the seriousness of the offences and its social impact.
From the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High
Court, it appears that the High Court has mechanically quashed
the respective FIRs, in exercise of its powers under Section 482
CrPC. The High Court has not at all considered the distinction
between a personal or private wrong and a social wrong and the
social impact. As observed by this Court in State of Maharashtra
v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [State of Maharashtra v. Vikram
Anantrai Doshi, [(2014) 15 SCC 29] , the Court’s principal duty,
while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash
the criminal proceedings, should be to scan the entire facts to find
out the thrust of the allegations and the crux of the settlement. As
observed, it is the experience of the Judge that comes to his aid
and the said experience should be used with care, caution,
circumspection and courageous prudence. In the case at hand,
the High Court has not at all taken pains to scrutinise the entire
conspectus of facts in proper perspective and has quashed the
criminal proceedings mechanically. Even, the quashing of the
respective FIRs by the High Court in the present cases for the
offences under Sections 307, 294 and 34 IPC and Section 394
IPC, Sections 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and Sections 25/27 of
the Arms Act respectively, and that too in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC is just contrary to the law laid down by
this Court in a catena of decisions.”

8. Looking to the aforesaid judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh(Supra), Narinder

Singh(Supra), Prabat Bhai Aahir(Supra) and Dhruv Gurjar(Supra)

following legal principles are emerge-

I. The Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., neither give the permission for compounding an offence

nor accept the compounding of offence.

ii. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C., Court can quash FIR/charge sheet/proceedings in those

cases where the offence(s) is/are not compoundable under the

provisions of Section 320, Cr.P.C. and where matter has been

amicably settled between victim/prosecutrix and accused, under

following guidelines–

(a) To secure the end of justice or to prevent abuse of process

of any court;

(b) In heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or

offences like murder, rape, dacoity, which are not private in

nature and have a serious impact on society, etc. cannot be

fittingly quashed;

(c) Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly

civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purpose of

quashing;

(d) The possibility of conviction is remove 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, to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding

would tentamount to the abuse of process of law.

(iii) This power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

9. In the case in hand, Sections 354, 354-A(1)(i) IPC are not

compoundable. Section 506 IPC is compoundable without permission

of the Court.

10. As per the direction of this Court Additional Registrar (Judicial)

recorded the statements of petitioner and respondent No.2. They stated

in their statements that they have compromised the matter voluntarily

without any fear or pressure, undue influence. Additional Registrar

(Judicial) was statisfied regarding the identification of petitioner and

respondent No.2.

11. Section 506 of IPC is compundable with the permission of the

Court but other sections of IPC are not compundable. Thus, looking to

this extra ordinary situation, this Court thinks that it is a fit case where

powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be extended to section

506 of IPC also.

12. Offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A(1)(i), 506 IPC

are not heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, they have no

serious impact on society. The possibility of conviction in the case in

hand is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceedings

would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme

injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the FIR. To continue

with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal

proceedings would tentamount to the abuse of process. To secure the

ends of justice the intervention of this Court is necessary under this

Section. It is a fit case where Court must exercise the inherent powers

vested to this Court under Section 482 CrPC. In these circumstances

and looking to the aforesaid Judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh (Supra), Narindar Singh

(Supra), Parbatbhai Aahir (Supra), this Court quash the aforesaid FIR

and criminal proceedings pursuant to it, in the interest of justice

exercising the powers vested to this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

13. Instant CRMP is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Judge

pm/pathak

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation