AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally 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 and setting aside of Charge-sheet bearing No. 32/2021 dated 19.03.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(m) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”) and Special Case No. 197/2021 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-14, Nagpur, arising out of First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 34/2018 dated 27.01.2018 registered with Police Station, Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur
The brief facts of the case are as follows -
The final report indicates that the complainant was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tekadi. On 26.01.2018, a Gram Sabha meeting was convened by the complainant. However, the meeting was called off due to inadequate number of persons than what is required in the quorum so as to conduct the meeting. It is alleged that on this count, the applicants who were present there along with some other persons started quarreling with the complainant and abused her in filthy language and hurled castiest slurs at the complainant. They even closed the gates of the Gram Panchayat premises and obstructed the complainant and other persons to proceed out from the premises. They allegedly threatened the complainant for having to face dire consequences. On the basis of said report, the FIR came to be registered against the applicants.
Heard Ms. Sonal Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and V. R. Borkar, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2/ complainant.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant tendered a copy of affidavit-in-reply dated 14.08.2026 as well as additional affidavit dated 19.08.2026 on behalf of the complainant across the bar stating that the matter has been settled between the complainant and the applicants. The affidavit-in-reply as well as additional affidavit are taken on record and marked as “Exh.X and X1” for identification.
The complainant has stated in the affidavits that the FIR was registered based on sudden verbal altercations initiated due to some misunderstanding, under heat of anger and prevailing local political rivalry in the village. It is further stated in the affidavit that during pendency of the proceedings, due to intervention of elderly persons of the village, panch members and community leaders, the applicants and the complainant have resolved all disputes and misunderstandings amicably. It is contended that the complainant does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR lodged against the applicants is quashed.
The complainant is present in-person before the Court today. She is duly identified by her counsel. On an inquiry with the complainant, she has reiterated the facts stated in the affidavit. The complainant has stated that she does not want to proceed against the applicants and she 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 the 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. 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 that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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”.
It is to be noted here that apart from the relevant Sections of the IPC, the applicants are charged with the offences under the Atrocities Act. Perusal of the FIR reveals that the genesis of the dispute is cancellation of Gram Sabha meeting convened by the complainant to which the applicants who belong to other political party, were opposing and they were trying to say that the meeting should be conducted then and there. This suggests that there was a political feud between the applicants and the complainant and the dispute arose out of the said political rivalry. It is not the case that the applicants had any intention to humiliate the complainant on account of being the member of 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 remote. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. 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. 34/2018 dated 27.01.2018 registered with Police Station, Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(1)(m) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as Charge-sheet No. 32/2021 dated 19.03.2021 and Special Case No. 197/2021 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-14, Nagpur are quashed and set aside qua the applicants, subject to the applicants depositing total cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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.