Hasib Khan and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Sheel Nagu, J.—In this petition filed under section 482 , Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of this Court, applications bearing I.A. No. 1225/2015 and I.A. No. 1226/2015 are moved for compounding the offence punishable under section 498A /34 of IPC which is non-compoundable offence as per section 320 Cr.P.C. The brief facts leading to the instant litigation are stated as under:

"Marriage between Petitioner No. 1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife was solemnized on 24.5.2000. It is alleged that the family members of the Petitioner No. 1/husband started harassing and assaulting Respondent No. 2/wife for dowry. The copy of FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the respondents attempted to burn the body of the Respondent No. 2/wife by pouring kerosene oil, where after she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Even after the alleged incident, dowry demands and threats to burn the body of respondent No. 2/wife continued which led to the registration of the FIR bearing Crime No. 92/2006 on 25.3.2006 under section 498A and 34 IPC. The petitioners suffered conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A and 34 IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine by the learned trial Court. The matter is pending in shape of appeal before the learned ASJ, Sironj as Criminal Appeal No. 110/2014. At this stage the rival parties have settled their disputes against each other and wish to live together peacefully as husband and wife."

1.1 The statements of the rival parties, (all the accused and as well as the complainant), are recorded, which disclose that parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution (appellate stage) as they have settled their scores against each other. The genuineness of the statements of the rival parties has been verified by the Principal Registrar in the note-sheet dated 11.8.2015, which is on record.

The law with respect to the powers of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has evolved through catena of judicial pronouncements by the apex Court. While laying down the guiding principles, Apex Court held that inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. are distinct and different from the powers given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under section 320 Cr.P.C. and have to be exercised with great caution and circumspection to secure the ends of justice, and prevent abuse of the process of any Court. {See : State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, ; Mahesh Chand and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan--> ; Simrikhia Vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another, ; State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, ; State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, ; Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others, ; Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, ; Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, ; G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; Murugesan and Others Vs. Ganapathy Velar, ; State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, ; B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; Jetha Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, ; Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, ; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, ; Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [ (2008) 15 SCC 671 ]; Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, ; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, ; Smt. Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, ; Devendra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, ; Sushil Suri Vs. C.B.I. and Another, ; Shiji v. Radhika [ (2011) 10 SCC 705 ]; Rajiv Saxena and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, ; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, ; Ashok Sadarangani and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, ; Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, ; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak, ; Manohar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, }.

Thus, the law laid by the apex Court is summarized as under. The following guiding principles can be deduced from the various judicial pronouncements supra. These principles are though not exhaustive but elucidative for appropriate adjudication of the applications for compounding of non-compoundable offences, by invoking inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

3.1 Nature and gravity of the offence The offences as provided under Indian Penal Code and other special statues can be broadly divided into the following two categories:

"(A) The minor offences and offences bearing civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute like those pertaining to property disputes between close relations etc., which have a be laboured dimension of criminal liability.

(B) The offences involving mental depravity/moral turpitude, like murder, rape, highway robbery, dacoity, etc., offences against the State enshrined in Chapter VII of IPC (relating to army, navy and air force) and socioeconomic offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. which are based on the principles of strict liability and presumption of guilt are heinous offences which are serious in nature. The impact of these offences visits not only the victim but also the society at large with adverse consequences. Thus, ordinarily, such offences ought not to be permitted to be compounded.

(C) Some of the offences affecting the human body as contained in Chapter XVI of IPC though fall in the category of heinous and serious offences can be considered as exceptions to the general rule. In cases of sudden quarrel/altercation between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence affecting human body in shape of attempt to murder under section 307 IPC or any other serious/non-compoundable offence. Therefore, only because FIR/charge-sheet incorporates such an offence should not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for seeking permission for settlement between the parties. The following elements may be examined for striking a delicate balance between the two conflicting interests:

(i) Nature and gravity of the offence;

(ii) Circumstances leading to the commission of the offence;

(iii) Nature of the injury/ies sustained;

(iv) Whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/non-vital part of the body;

(v) Weapon used;

(vi) Whether alleging of any graver offence is for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to establish prima facie case;

(vii) Willingness of the parties to settle their dispute/s against each other and the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them and would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, etc."

3.2 Society vis-�-vis. individual. The repercussions of the commission of the offences must be examined on the basis of the effects caused on the society at large and against an individual/victim or the family of the victim. The offences which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society must not be ordinarily allowed to be compounded.

3.3 Stage of settlement The stage/timing of the settlement plays a crucial role. In the cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence where the matter is still under investigation and even the charge-sheet has not been filed or where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, liberal view may be adopted based on benevolence in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. On the contrary, in the cases involving heinous and serious offences where prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, or where the conviction is already recorded by the trial Court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, the inherent powers should be exercised sparingly as the convict has been found guilty of the crime.

3.4 Effects of continuation of criminal proceedings. It should also be examined 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 case/s. In other words, considerations should be based on 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.

The factual matrix herein reveals that rival parties are members of the same family closely related to each other. It is common knowledge that when offences arise from dispute between members of same family, the genesis and cause of the same more often than not is based on impulse than intent. Thus, it would be futile and rather vexatious to allow the present proceedings even at the appellate stage to continue, since it will lead to abuse of the process of Court.

This Court has duly considered the fact that in the instant case proceedings in the appeal against conviction are pending before learned ASJ, Sironj. However, looking to the facts and circumstances involved herein and that good sense has prevailed between the parties, allowing settlement between the parties even at the appellate stage would be in the interest of justice and to eschew discord and disharmony on the matrimonial front.

In view of the above, I.A. No. 1225/2015 and I.A. No. 1226/2015 filed under section 320 Cr.P.C. are allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 92/06 Police Station Sironj, District Vidisha and the consequential prosecution (at appellate stage) in connection with offence/s under section 498A of IPC pending against petitioners is quashed.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. No cost.