Bombay High Court
Jagannath S/O Bhagwat Shelke And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 December, 2014
Bench: S.S. Shinde
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5357 OF 2014
1] Jagannath s/o. Bhagwat Shelke,
Age 37 years, Occupation Agril.
R/o. Shendi, Ta. Washi,
District Osmanabad.
2] Shobha w/o. Jagannath Shelke,
Age 32 Years, Occupation Agril.
R/o. Shendi, Ta. Washi,
District Osmanabad .. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through: The Police Inspector,
Washi Police Station, Washi
District Osmanabad
[Copy for respondents to be served
on Public Prosecutor, High Court
Bench at Aurangabad]
2] Sopan s/o. Narsing Shelke,
Age 50 Years, Occup. Agril.
R/o. Shendi, Ta. Washi,
District Osmanabad .. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Rajendra G. Hange, Adv. for applicants
Mr. S.G.Karlekar, APP for Respondent - State
Mr. N.R.Thorat, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE: 8th December, 2014
...
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]
1] Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally.
3]
This application is filed for quashing the
proceedings bearing RCC No. 40 of 2014, pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washi,
pursuant to Crime No.05 of 2011, registered with Washi
Police Station, District Osmanabad, for the offence
punishable under sections 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code, and the Crime
bearing Crime No.05 of 2011 registered with Washi Police
Station.
4] The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply, paragraphs 2
and 2 (sic) of which read, thus:
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
"2] I further say and submit that applicant
No.1 is my nephew whereas applicant No.2 is his
wife. They are close and blood related to me, so
there is no grudge against them.
2] I say and submit that now the matter is
amicably settled / compromised between me and
the applicants. I and the applicants are inhabitant
of village Shendi, Ta. Washi District Osmanabad.
We are having no enemity with each other. Due to
trifle incident alleged offence took place. For
maintaining good relations in future, we have
decided to compromise the matter. I am having
no objection to quash proceedings bearing
proceedings bearing RCC No. 40 of 2014 pending
before Judicial Magistrate F.C. Washi pursuant to
Crime No.05 of 2011 registered with Washi Police
Station, District Osmanabad for the offence
punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504 and
506 read with section 34 of the Indian penal Code
and the crime bearing Crime No.05 of 2011
registered with Washi Police Station, may kindly be
quashed and set aside."
5] Further affidavits filed by the applicant Nos. 1
and 2 are in continuation of the averments in the Criminal
Application for quashing of First Information Report.
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by the
applicant No.1, read thus:
"2] I further say and submit that respondent No.2
informant is uncle whereas applicant No.2 is my
wife. We all are close and blood related to each
other. Now, the mater is amicably settled /
compromised between us.
3]
I hereby undertake that I will not commit
similar offence in future. Hence, to quash
proceedings bearing RCC No. 40 of 2014 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate F.C. Washi pursuant
to Crime No.05 of 2011 registered with Washi Police
Station, District Osmanabad for the offence
punishable under sections 326, 324, 323 504 and
506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and also the FIR in Crime No. 05 of 2011 registered
with Washi Police Station."
Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by
the applicant No.2, read thus:
"2] I further say and submit that
respondent No.2 informant is uncle of my
husbanbd [i.e. father-in-law of mine] whereas
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
applicant No.1 is my husband. We all are
close and blood related to each other. Now,
the mater is amicably settled / compromised
between us.
3] I hereby undertake that I will not
commit similar offence in future. Hence, to
quash proceedings bearing RCC No. 40 of
2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate
F.C. Washi pursuant to Crime No.05 of 2011
registered with Washi Police Station, District
Osmanabad for the offence punishable under
sections 326, 324, 323 504 and 506 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also
the FIR in Crime No. 05 of 2011 registered
with Washi Police Station."
6] The applicants and the respondent No.2 are
present before this Court, and identified by the respective
Advocate appearing for them. On interacting with the
applicants, they stated that, henceforth they will not
indulge in similar activities. The respondent No.2 i.e.
original complainant has also stated that, he has agreed
for compromise voluntarily without any coercion or
pressure by the applicants.
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
7] Upon conjoint reading of the affidavit-in-reply
filed by the respondent No.2, averments in the application
and further affidavits filed by the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, it
appears that, the complainant is uncle of the applicant
No.1. Applicant No.2 is the wife of the applicant No.1.
They are close relatives. It further appears that, due to
trifle incident alleged offence had taken place. The parties
have decided to maintain good relations and harmony in
future. Upon careful reading of the affidavit in reply filed
by the respondent No.2, averments in the application and
further affidavits filed by the applicants, it appears that,
the dispute between the parties appears to be private in
nature.
8] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another 1 in para
No.61, observed, thus:
"61. ..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
1. 2012 (10) SC Page 303;
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
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 FIR may be exercised where
the offender and the 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
ig depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot befittingly 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 a
serious impact of society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
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, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise the
offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the
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
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
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 the criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
Yet in another Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State
of Punjab & another2 in para No.31 observed, thus:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum
up and lay down the following principles by which
the High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties
and exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code while accepting the settlement and quashing
the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:
(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.
2. 2014 AIR SCW 2065
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
(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.
ig (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.
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
(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
ig 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
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
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."
9] In the light of averments in the affidavit filed
by the respondent No.2 and looking to the nature of the
controversy, in our opinion, settlement deserves to be
accepted.
10] No fruitful purpose would be served by
continuing the further proceedings based upon the First
Information Report bearing Crime No.05 of 2011
registered with Washi Police Station, District Osmanabad,
for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323,
5357.2014 Cri.Appln.odt
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code, since
complainant is not going to support the allegations in the
First Information Report. The further continuation of the
proceedings would be wastage of time and abuse of
process of Court.
11] In that view of the matter, the application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause-B and same stands
disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
...
DDC
