AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
This application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeks quashing First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 1185/2026 dated 30.06.2026 registered with Police Station, Khadan, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”).
The brief facts of the case are as follows -The FIR indicates that the complainant/non-applicant no.2 is the building contractor and the applicant is the President of a Labour Union namely INTUC. On 24.06.2026, the complainant and his friend were visiting the house of the applicant to enquire about his health since he was unwell. During their conversation, the complainant went outside to receive a phone call. After attending the call when the complainant was coming back, the applicant was allegedly talking with the friend of the complainant about the complainant’s caste and telling him as to why he is keeping any sort of relation with the complainant who belongs to a lower caste i.e. Mahar Buddha. It is alleged that the applicant abused the complainant in filthy language and hurled castiest slurs at the complainant. When the complainant resisted the same, the applicant threatened to assault him at the hands of his men. On basis of the said report, the FIR came to be registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences.
Heard Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. Kalyan Chiwarkar, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2/complainant.
The complainant suo-motu appears through his counsel and tendered an affidavit across the bar stating that the matter has been settled between the applicant and himself. The affidavit is taken on record and marked as “Exh.X” for identification.
The complainant has stated in the affidavit that he is a social worker and the husband of ex-mayor of Akola. It is further contended that the alleged incident had occurred out of heated exchanges between the applicant and himself on general political issues and it created misunderstanding in his mind that he was insulted. It is further contended in the affidavit that the FIR was registered in the heat of the moment and out of misunderstanding. It is further stated in the affidavit that now the matter has been settled between the applicant and himself. Since, they both know each other since long, in order to keep harmony in their relation, the complainant does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution against the applicant and he has no objection if the FIR lodged against the applicant is quashed.
The complainant is present in-person before the Court today. He is duly identified by his counsel. On an inquiry with the complainant, he has reiterated the facts stated in the affidavit. The complainant has stated that he does not want to proceed against the applicant and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Learned APP for the State raised an objection to the settlement arrived between the parties on the ground that some offences registered against the applicants are non-compoundable in nature. Hence, the parties cannot settle the dispute amongst themselves.
It is a settled position of law that generally grave and heinous crime which are against the society cannot be quashed while exercising the inherent powers of this court under Section 528 of the BNS, more particularly the offences under the Atrocities Act. Where it is found that the genesis of the dispute is something else and not the words allegedly used by the accused and the intention of the offender was not to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, in those peculiar facts, the Court can exercise the inherent power to quash the FIR. With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed in para 29 as under :
“29.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:
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.”
It is to be noted here that apart from the relevant Sections of the BNS, the applicant is charged with the offences under the Atrocities Act. It appears from the affidavit (Exh.X) that the complainant is the husband of ex-mayor of Akola Municipal Corporation, which itself shows that the complainant is involved in politics. The complainant has stated on affidavit that the genesis of the dispute was political issue and on account of differences of opinion. Thus, the genesis of the dispute is private in nature. This suggests that there was a political feud between the applicant and the complainant and the dispute arose out of it. It is not the case that the applicant had any intention to humiliate the complainant on account of being the member of the Scheduled Caste. Since, the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court, continuation of the present prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.
In this context, the Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, in para no. 17 has held as under:-
"17.On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."
The present dispute is of a private nature and not a heinous one. It also does not involve any issue affecting the society at large. Since, the parties have settled the dispute out of the Court and the complainant does not want to prosecute the applicants for the alleged offences, the possibility of the prosecution culminating into conviction appears to be bleak and remote. Therefore, a case is made out for exercising inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (old Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.) to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
The Criminal Application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing No. 1185/2026 dated 30.06.2026 registered with Police Station, Khadan, Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are quashed and set aside qua the applicant, subject to the applicant depositing cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) in the “Public Welfare Account” maintained with the Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur, bearing Account No. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978, within two weeks from today.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.