Bombay High Court
Suraj S/O Vasudevrao Lohi And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 APL 168.16.[J]odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 168 OF 2016
1] Suraj s/o Vasudevrao Lohi,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o. Post-Narkhed,
District-Nagpur.
2] Shri Pravin s/o Sadashiv Khairkar,
Aged 35 years,
Occupation-Private,
R/o. Mouza-Madhela, Tah. Narkhed,
District-Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS.
....Versus....
State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jalalkheda,
Nagpur. ..... NON-APPLICANT
..........
Mr. Y.V. Nayyar, Advocate for Applicants,
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for Non-Applicant.
..........
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 20, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI , J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for
the parties finally by consent.
2 APL 168.16.[J]odt
2] The present application is filed by the applicant no.1 i.e. the accused
and applicant no.2 i.e. the complainant jointly for the quashment of the F.I.R.
registered in Crime No.20/2016 by Jalalkheda Police Station under Section 326 of
the Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Narkhed.
3] The prosecution case, in brief, is that :
The complainant and the accused are the resident of Tahsil-Katol,
District-Nagpur. On 21.2.2016, in the morning, the complainant Pravin Khairkar
proceeded to the Saloon at 10.00 a.m. to Jalalkheda for his work. While the
complainant was returning to Katol, at about 7.30 p.m. near Bharsingi square, the
accused Suraj Lohi was standing near his restaurant. The complainant asked the
accused "suraj bhau tu mala odkhat nahi ka ?" on which the accused said "tu gandu
badmash hai kya ? Jyada rangdar ban raha hai kya ?. The accused went near his
motorcycle and by means of knife he inflicted injury on the back side of left thigh of
the complainant. The complainant was then taken to Government Hospital,
Jalalkheda. He was treated there. The complainant then lodged complaint on
22.2.2016.
4] Consequently, the offence was initially registered under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code, however, it was converted into Section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code. Since the present case is in respect of the offence under Section 326
3 APL 168.16.[J]odt
of the Indian Penal Code, the investigation papers were called for from the learned
APP. The charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
5] We have perused the investigation papers. The perusal of the FIR
reveals that the incident is not an outcome of any premeditation and had taken place
within a spur of the moment. On perusal of the medical certificate, it reveals that
the injuries are on the thigh of the complainant and not on the vital part of the body.
6] The applicants are permanent resident of Tahsil-Katol, District-Nagpur.
They have resolved their dispute amicably in order to maintain the peace and
harmony in the village. The applicants have filed the consent-terms at Annexure-3.
7] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others .vs.
State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 after referring to its
earlier judgment in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, has observed thus :-
"13. The question is as to whether offence under Section 307
IPC falls within the aforesaid parameters. First limb of this question is to
reflect on the nature of the offence. The charge against the accused in
such cases is that he had attempted to take the life of another person
(victim). On this touchstone, should we treat it a crime of serious nature
so as to fall in the category of heinous crime, is the poser. Finding an
answer to this question becomes imperative as the philosophy and
jurisprudence of sentencing is based thereupon. If it is heinous crime of
serious nature then it has to be treated as a crime against the society
and not against the individual alone. Then it becomes the solemn duty
of the State to punish the crime doer. Even if there is a
4 APL 168.16.[J]odt
settlement/compromise between the perpetrator of crime and the victim,
that is of no consequence."
After framing a question as to whether the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code could also be exercised for permitting a settlement amongst the
parties for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court
has observed thus in para 29.6 :
"29.6 : ig 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
5 APL 168.16.[J]odt
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship."
Similar view has been taken by Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav & others .vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported in III
(2014) CCR 426 (SC).
8]
Their Lordships have held that the High Court can examine as to
whether there is a strong possibility of the conviction or the chances of conviction are
remote and bleak and in the former case the Court can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings, whereas in the later case it will be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea for compounding the offence due
to settlement between the parties. It is further observed by Their Lordships that
while doing so the Court can also consider as to whether by the fact of settlement
between the parties, it would result in harmony between them, which may improve
their future relationships. The nature of the injuries are not that serious. In any
event, now since the parties have settled the matter, even if the matter is permitted
to go for trial, the witnesses would turn hostile and as such, there would be no
possibility of there being a conviction.
9] In the instant case, the incident had taken place within a spur of
moment. No intention appears on the part of accused to commit the offence. The
6 APL 168.16.[J]odt
injuries on the body of the complainant are not that serious. In any event, since the
parties have settled the matter, even if the trial is conducted, there is possibility of
witnesses turning hostile and there would not be any possibility of conviction in the
trial.
10] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and since the courts
are flooded with old pending matters, we do not find that any purpose would be
served in forcing the trial upon the parties, particularly when they have settled the
matter and there is remote possibility of securing a conviction. The parties are
present before the court and they reiterate about the settlement.
11] In the result, Criminal Application is hereby allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (1).
JUDGE. J UDGE.
Gulande
