Jahani And Others vs State Of M.P. And Others

The Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioners/applicants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in connection with Criminal Case No.196/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323/34, 506 and 326/34 of the IPC which is

pending before the JMFC, Tendukheda, District-Damoh and also discharging them on the basis of compromise application, which is filed by both the

parties before the learned trial Court.

As per prosecution case, on 20.11.2004 when complainant-Veeran Yadav along with his brother-Uttam Yadav, his father-Tularam were returning

to their house after searching their animals. On the way, petitioner/applicant No.1-Jahani Yadav and petitioner/applicant No.2- Devi Singh were

armed with Ballum (spear), petitioner/applicant No.2-Bharat Yadav was armed with farsa and petitioner/applicant No.7-Kallan was armed with tabal

met them, abused filthily. Petitioner/applicant No.1 has inflicted injury to the complainnat-Veeran Yadav by means of ballum (spear) on his chest.

When complainant and his father, brother tried to run away then petitioners/applicants have also stopped them and petitioner/applicant No.2 has

inflicted injury to his father-Tularam by means of farsa on his head. Thereafter, petitioner/applicant No.4-Kaurai Yadav and petitioner/applicant No.6

have came there armed with tabal and petitioner/applicant No.5-Ghasita has also came there armed with lathi. Petitioner No.4 has inflicted injury to

the complainant-Veeran by means of tabal on his back side, petitioner/applicant No.6 has also inflicted injury to his father-Tularam by means of farsa

on his right arm, petitioner/applicant No.4 has inflicted injury to his father by means of tabal on his right leg, petitioner/applicant No.5 has inflicted

injury to his father by means of lathi on his both hands and fingures also when his brother-Uttam and his mother-Ujyari have tried to save them, then

petitioners/applicants No.3 and 5 have also committed marpeet with them. Thereafter, petitioners/applicants have also threatened them to dire

consequences. Thereafter, on the report of the complainant, a case has been registered against the present petitioners/applicants for the alleged

offences.

Complainant/respondent No.3 has lodged the FIR at Police Station-Tendukheda on 20.11.2004 against the petitioners/applicants for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 294, 341 and 506-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and after that, on the basis of medical report, Section 326 of the

IPC has been added by the police and charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, learned trial Court has framed the

charges against the petitioners/applicants for pffence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 506 Part-II of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that during pendency of the said case, both parties have filed an application under Section 320

(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for permission to settle their matter on the basis of compromise. During pendency of the said case, one

injured-Tularam Yadav has died on 11. 02.2012, therefore, injured-Tularam’s wife has also filed a compromise application along with a death

certificate of her husband/injured. On 22.10.2018, learned trial Court has partly allowed the said application in respect of offence punishable under

Sections 294, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 and 506 Part-II of the IPC with regard to the complainant-Veeran, injured-Uttam, Ujyari Bai who is

wife of the deceased-Tularam and also wife of the deceased, namely, Ujyari has filed an application for compromise under Section 320 sub Section

4([k) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of her husband/deceased-Tularam. Thereafter, learned trial Court have acquitted the applicants from the aforesaid charges,

but offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC is non-compoundable, so, learned trial Court has rejected the said

application in relation to said offence i.e. Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC against them. Applicants and complainants are residing in the

same village and they are family members, both parties have voluntarily entered into compromise before the trial Court and now their relations have

become very cordial. They have no grudge or complaint to each other and they want to end all the disputes and enmities between them, but learned

trial Court has rejected their application, whereas this Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the same situation. With the

abovesaid submission, he prays for allowing this petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order against the present

petitioners/applicants in accordance with law. Therefore, this petition is deserves to be dismissed.

Heard both the parties and perused the record. It is revealed from the record that compromise is taken place between the parties and they have

settled their dispute amicably without any influence, fear and undue pressure, but offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the

IPC is non-compoundable offence because injured-Veeran Yadav has received grievous injury on his body, therefore, learned trial Court did not

consider the said compromise application in this regard.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors reported in I.L.R. [2019] M.P. 1605 (SC) in paras, 13, 14 and

15 has held as under :-

“13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code

can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial

relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against

the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a

serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire

dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by

the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such

exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in

the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature

and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to

consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had

managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.

Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and

even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR

on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the

conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court

has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to

note the antecedents of the accused.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the High Court in

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8000 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused,

and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. Criminal Appeal No.350 of 2019.â€​

After careful reading of the aforesaid pronouncement, it is revealed that the High Court has power to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of

non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed

some cautions while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceedings.

On perusal of FIR, it is revealed that due to previous dispute regarding molestation of the wife of the complainant-Veeran Yadav by the petitioner

No.7-Kallan, for which the complainant has registered the FIR, so, there was some enmity is going on between the complainant and petitioners. On

20.11.2004, the petitioners obstructed the way of complainant and injured persons and also assaulted them with deadly weapons. They have also

inflicted some injuries to Ujyari when she intervened. On perusal of query report annexed in the case, the injury sustained to the complainant-Veeran

Yadav is found grievous in nature. In the present case, it is found that learned trial Court has also recorded the some statements of witnesses. So, it

can not be said that the case is preliminary stage.

In such circumstances, considering the nature of used weapons as well as gravity of the offence, this is not a proper case, in which inherent

jurisdiction can be invoked by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Hence, the petition filed by the petitioners/applicants is deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this petition is  hereby dismissed.