AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Perused the affidavit and the Joint Memo
filed by the parties in both the petitions.
The petitioners in Criminal Petition
No.8999/2017 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in SC
No.33/2015 arising out of Crime No.116/2013 of
Shanivarsanthe police for the offence punishable under
sections 323, 326, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The second
respondent Abdul Kunhe @ Kunji is the complainant in
the said case.
The petitioners in Criminal Petition
No.9000/2017 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in SC
No.59/2015 arising out of Crime No.117/2013 of
Shanivarsanthe police for the offence punishable under
sections 448, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC.
The second respondent Smt. Nazeema, wife of
petitioner No.1 in CRL.P. No.8999/2017, is the
complainant.
After committal of the case and counter cases,
the petitioners have sought for quashing of the said
proceedings. On the previous occasion, both the parties
were present and they have filed the Joint compromise
petition stating that they have compounded the offences
and sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the
above said two Sessions Cases.
It is submitted by the learned counsels at the
time of arguments that due to some mis-understanding
between the parties, they have lodged complaints
against each other and they are residents of the same
place and they are known to each other. They have to
live together in the same village in future also.
Therefore, at the intervention of the elders and well-
wishers and friends of the family of the petitioner and
the respondent in both the cases, they have entered
into a compromise.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government
Pleader that though the offence punishable u/s.307 of
IPC is alleged, but no such serious injury has been
occurred on any vital part of the body on the injured in
connection with SC No.33/2015. The learned High
Court Government Pleader has also appraised this court
that the weapon-revolver used for the purpose of
commission of the offence is by the licence holder i.e.,
petitioner No.1.
It is worth to refer here a decision of the
Hon''ble Apex Court which is reported in (2014) 6 SCC
466 between Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State
of Punjab and another, wherein the Hon''ble Apex
Court has observed that - Even for the purpose of
compounding the offence u/s.307 of IPC and quashing
the proceedings, the High Court depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case can exercise such
power. It is worth to refer the relevant paragraphs 22
& 23, which reads thus -
"22. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under Section 307 IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision-making which requires "certainty" too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernible and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will
loose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inas much as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by "that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances".
As there is a close relation between equality and justice, it should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under Section 307 IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to discuss the subject at length. It is for this reason we deem it appropriate to lay down some distinct, definite and clear guidelines which can be kept in mind by the High Courts to take a view as to under what circumstances it should accept the settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings and under what circumstances it should refrain from doing so. We make it clear that though there would be a general discussion in this behalf as well, the matter is examined in the context of the offences under Section 307 IPC."
In another decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW
4319 between Yogendra Yadav Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and another, wherein the Hon''ble Apex
Court has observed that -
"Inherent powers for quashing of the FIR lodged for the offence punishable under sections 323 and 307 of IPC which are non compoundable offences - Affidavit filed by complainant stating about filing of Compromise Petition - Also stating that appellants are neighbours and that they are living peacefully - In view of compromise, proceedings against appellants, quashed."
Therefore, depending upon the facts and circumstances
of the case, nature of injuries sustained and also the
status of the parties in the society and their living in a
particular area, all those factors are to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of quashing the
proceedings and also bearing in mind the impact of such
allowing the compromise by the courts.
As noted above, the parties are from the same
village. They said that they are neighbours and due to
some misunderstanding, the incident said to have been
happened and now, they have compromised the matter
and they are living peacefully in the village even after
initiation of the proceedings. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, in both the cases, the Joint
Memo filed by the parties have to be accepted.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. In both
the cases as noted above, the Joint Memo filed by the
parties are hereby accepted. Consequently, the entire
proceedings in SC No.33/2015 arising out of Crime
No.116/2013 of Shanivarsanthe Police Station, pending
on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Kodagu, Madikeri, for the offence punishable under
section 323, 326, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959; and the entire
proceedings in SC No.59/2015 arising out of Crime
No.117/2013 of Shanivarsanthe Police Station, pending
on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Kodagu, Madikeri, for the offence punishable under
sections 448, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC,
are hereby quashed.