A single judge bench of the Odisha High Court comprising of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a criminal petition while assessing the contours of the court’s power conferred u/s 482, IPC to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences u/s 320. It was held that this power cannot be exercised for heinous offences which have an impact on the society at large. Even if it is to in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, proceedings can only be quashed, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, after considering the antecedents and the conduct of the accused.
Facts:
On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.592 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b) & 307 of IPC (2 counts) and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same is pending for committal in PRC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II. While pending for committal, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.7 of 2021. While pending this quash petition, both the petitioner and the second respondent entered into compromise and filed joint compromise memo dated 29.04.2022 and the second respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues between them have been now settled amicably and the quarrel between them is purely private in nature and have no impact on the society. Further, the possibility of conviction is remote and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Advocate appearing for the first respondent/police filed counter and vehemently opposed to quash the proceedings on compromise. They contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeter. In fact, he was let out on bail on default ground as contemplated under Section 167(2) of CrPC, due to non-filing of final report within the stipulated time. Therefore, the second respondent completed investigation and filed final report and the same is pending for committal on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II. He is also a history sheeter rowdy on the file of the Inspector of Police. So far, he has been involved in 25 cases.
Observations of the Court:
The court relied on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others with regard to quashing the proceedings for the offence punishable u/s 307, IPC on compromise, wherein it was held that:
- “The power conferred u/s 482, IPC to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences u/s 320, IPC can in cases having a predominantly civil character (commercial transactions, matrimonial relationship, family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves). Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences (murder, rape, dacoity, etc.) and for offences under the special statutes.
- Offences u/s 307, IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under the same cannot be quashed in exercise of powers u/s 482, IPC on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 u/s 307, IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of the weapons used and injury sustained. 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.”
Therefore, section 307, IPC and the Arms Act would fall in the category of heinous and serious offence and hence, cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. Further, while exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC., 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 on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused, the conduct of the accused i.e. whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding and how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. In the case on hand, so far, the petitioner has involved in 25 previous cases and he had very bad antecedents. All the offences are very serious in nature. He is also a history sheeter. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and also the conduct of the accused, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings under compromise.
Decision:
The criminal original petition was dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case: Ramanathan (A) Thoopakki Ramanathan vs. State of Odisha and anr.
Date of Verdict: 14.09.2022
Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Citation: CRL.O.P.No.16954 of 2021 and Crl. MP. No. 9245 of 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
