Raghvendra Singh Kushwah vs State of M.P.

M.K. Mudgal, J.—Heard on admission.

Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred u/s 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition jointly for quashing an First Information Report concerning Crime No. 451 of 2011 u/s 307/34 of IPC registered at PS City Kotwali District Bhind.

Facts in nut-shell giving rise to the petition are that complainant/petitioner no. 2 Gyanendra Singh Kushwah filed a complaint to the effect that on the date of incident at about 1 AM in the night when he came out of his house for urination, he found that there was someone on the roof of the house. He took out his gun and lighten the torch. At the same time, two fires were made from the roof one of which hit him and went through his right shoulder. In the light of torch, he could identify the assailants as Raghvendra Kushwah, Mansih Shrivastava and one unknown person with whom he was having enmity over the distribution of ancestral property and they were also Advocates with him in some matter. On this report, FIR concerning crime No. 451 of 2011 was registered at City Kotwali Bhind for offences under sections 307/34 of IPC. The injured was sent for medical examination and matter is pending for investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and they do not want to pursue it any further in the Court of law. They want to live peacefully. The complainant has also filed I.A. No. 388 of 2014 to the effect that he also does not want to pursue the criminal case further against the petitioners-accused as both the parties are neighbours and are of the same profession and pendency of the case will be of no use as they have to live in the same vicinity. The application is supported by the affidavit of complainant Shri Gyanendra Singh Kushwah. Hence, this petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. and I.A. aforesaid have been filed by the parties with a prayer to quash the FIR as stated herein above. The compromise was verified by the Registrar on 24.2.2014.

The counsel for the state formally opposed the prayer.

On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the parties belong to the legal profession and all the disputes have been resolved mutually owing to which, the Respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has held as under:

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 u/s 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 u/s 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences u/s 320 of the Code. No doubt, u/s 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 pre-dominantly 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. (VI) Offences u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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 circumstance/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 u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

Further, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, it has been ruled that where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C.

Further more, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 u/s 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.

In this case, as the compromise between the complainant/respondent no. 2 and the offender petitioners has been carried out, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal case would be futile exercise and tantamount to abuse of process of law, despite settlement and compromise having been reached between the victim and the offenders. Considering the nature of offence and facts and circumstances of the case, the petition may be allowed.

In view of the foregoing and having regard to the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Narinder Singh, Shiji @ Pappu and Gian Singh (supra), the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners/accused concerning Crime No. 451 of 2011 u/s 307/34 of IPC registered at PS City Kotwali District Bhind are ordered to be quashed.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.