Surajpal Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No. 131/2014 dated 03.03.2014 of Police Station, Kotwali, Pali for the offences punishable under sections 143, 341, 323, 307, 381 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant-Narendra Puri lodged the FIR No. 131/2014 at Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, inter alia, alleging therein that he went to Indra Colony for some reason at that time, petitioners, who ambushed themselves, got his bike stopped while putting their vehicle before his bike; petitioner No. 1-Surajpal Singh alighted from the vehicle and put a sword on the neck of the complainant; petitioner No. 2-Manphool Singh took a pipe and started beating with him. Upon the objections having been raised, all the occupants of the vehicle having lathis, one of them was having a pistol, alighted and started beating with the complainant. They asked the complainant not to come in the way of Surajpal and at that time, petitioner No. 2-Manphool Singh assaulted on the complainant''s head by pipe, as a result of which, he became unconscious and thereafter accused took a sum of Rs. 37250/- from his pocket as well as a gold chain weighing 3 tolas from his neck.

The police has started investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, however, on 26.11.2014, the petitioners have filed this criminal misc. petition challenging the impugned FIR.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 was counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners party, which has now been settled with the understanding that proceedings of both the cases may be dropped. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the further proceedings in the criminal regular case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the dispute has already been settled amicably between the parties, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has verified the factum of compromise arrived at between parties and contended that the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the allegations against the respondents and has no objection if impugned FIR is quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and today also learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioners as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

The Hon''ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has held as below:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 under Section 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 F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:

"(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 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 under Section 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 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. 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 under Section 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 circumstances/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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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."

(Emphasis supplied)

In view of the aforesaid decisions and looking to the fact that the matter is still under investigation and charge-sheet has not been filed and the parties have already settled their dispute amicably, it is a fit case wherein the FIR lodged against the petitioners for the offences under sections 143, 341, 323, 307, 382 IPC can be quashed.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case (supra) and in Narinder Singh''s case and in the facts and circumstances as noted above this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No. 131/2014 dated 03.03.2014 lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Pali against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.