Bombay High Court
Annappa Avdhut Haladvdru And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 July, 2016
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
rpa 1/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4995 OF 2015
(1) Aannapaa Avdhut Haladvdru ]
]
(2) Aamsiddha Avdhut Haladvadru ]
]
(3) Bansiddha Aanapaa Haladvadru ]
]
(4) Hanmant Aanappa Haladvadru ]
]
(5) Avdhut Aannappa Gadade ]
ig ]
(6) Aamsiddha Aannappa Gadade ]
]
(7) Bilyani Aamsiddha Gadade ]
]
(8) Siddharam @ Siddhu Madgonda @ ]
Madhu Gadade ]
]
All R/o. Umadi, Taluka Jath, ]
District - Sangli ] .. Petitioners
Versus
(1) The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Umadi Police Station, ]
Sangli, Distict - Sangli. ]
(2) Siddhapaa Avdhut Haladvadru ]
R/o. Umadi, Taluka - Jath, ]
Distroct - Sangli. ] .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5004 OF 2015
(1) Ningappa Avdhut Haladvdru ]
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2016 23:59:42 :::
rpa 2/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
(2) Sidhappa Avdhut Haladvadru ]
]
(3) Kanappa Aanapaa Haladvadru ]
]
(4) Mahadev @ Mahadevappa ]
Sidhappa Haladvadru ]
]
All R/o. Umadi, Taluka Jath, ]
District - Sangli ] .. Petitioners
Versus
(1) The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Umadi Police Station, ]
Sangli, Distict - Sangli. ]
(2)
Aamsiddha Avdhut Haladvadru ]
R/o. Umadi, Taluka - Jath, ]
Distroct - Sangli. ] .. Respondents
......
Mr. Wasim Samlwale i/b. Mr. U. R Mankapure, Advocate for the
Petitioner in W.P.4995 of 2015.
Mr. Manoj M. Badgujar, Advocate for the Petitioner in W.P. 5004
of 2015.
......
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JUNE 30, 2016.
PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 18, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2 Learned APP waives service for Respondent - State.
rpa 3/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
3 The petitioners in both these petitions have invoked
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as well as the inherent powers of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The issues
involved in both these petitions are interconnected with each
other and hence, the petitions are disposed of by common
judgment and order. In both these petitions, the petitioners and
the respective complainants have submitted that the parties
involved therein
ig have resolved their disputes and have
approached this Court for quashing by consent, the respective
criminal proceedings.
4 Criminal writ petition no.4995 of 2015 is preferred by
the petitioners who are original accused in C.R. No.45 of 2015,
registered with Umadi Police Station, District Sangli. The said
FIR was registered at the instance of second respondent for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323,
324, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC")
and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act alongwith Section
135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. First Information Report (for
short "FIR") was registered on 2nd October, 2015.
rpa 4/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
5 The brief facts in relation to C.R. No.45 of 2015 are as
follows:-
(a) The complainant is the owner of the agricultural land
situated at village Gadade. His brother Mallappa is also
residing near the house of the complainant along with his
family. His sisters Gangavva Mahadeo Gadade and
Sangavva Amasidha Gadade are also residing in the nearby
vicinity. ig The complainant, has brothers namely Annappa,
Lakappa, Malappa, Kanappa, Nigappa and Aamasiddh. The
brothers of the complainant Annappa, Lakappa, Kanappa,
Nigappa and Aamasiddh are residing with their families in
their houses situated in the field.
(b) Complainant's brother Malappa has sold his share in the
property to his brother Lakappa. Annappa was demanding
the land from the complainant. On that count, there was a
quarrel between them.
(c) On 27th September, 2015, there was a quarrel between the
sisters of the complainant namely Gangavva and Sangavva,
on account of the boundary line of property. The brothers
rpa 5/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
of the complainant namely Anappa, Aamsiddha, nephew
Bansiddha and Hanumant had tried to intervene in the
quarrel with a view to resolve the same. Complainant and
his brother Kanappa has also tried to intervene in the
quarrel. However, brother of the complainant namely
Aamasiddha stated that the dispute should not be resolved
on that day and and all of them left the place.
(d) The complainant and his brother Kanappa had gone to the
field to bring the tractor. When they reached near the
house of their brother Aanappa, it was noticed that people
had gathered near the said house. At that time, Bansiddha
and Aamasiddha intercepted the motor cycle of the
complainant and his brother and they were abused.
Bansiddha was holding sickle and Aamsiddha was carrying
stick in their hands. At that time Aannappa, Avdhut
Aannappa Gadade, Aamsiddha Aannappa Gadade, Bilayni
Aamsiddha Gadade came their with sticks. Hanumant was
armed with sword. They threatened the complainant and
his brother that they will be killed. At that time, Bansiddha
Haladvadru assaulted the complainant on his head by sickle
and Aamsiddha assaulted him by stick. Others also
rpa 6/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
assaulted by sticks. Hunumant was carrying sword and
gave a blow on the head of Kanappa. All others also
assaulted by sticks and fist blows. The complainant and his
brother sustained injuries and they were taken to the
hospital for treatment. On the basis of statement of
complainant, this First Information Report (for short "FIR")
was registered with Umadi Police Station, Sangli.
(e) Criminal Writ Petition No.5004 of 2015 assails FIR dated
28th September, 2015 registered with Umadi Police Station
vide C.R. No.44 of 2015. The offencs were registered under
Section 307, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The FIR has
been registered at the instance of the second respondent
namely Aamsiddha Avdhut Haladvadru. Petitioners therein
are implicated as accused in the said FIR.
6 Brief facts as alleged in relation to C.R. No.44 of 2015
are as follows:
(a) Complainant Aamsiddha Avadhut Haladvdru is residing
with his family in their house situated at the agricultural
field situated at Umadi District, Sangli. The sisters of the
rpa 7/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
complainant namely Sangavva is married to Aamsiddha
Aanappa Gadade and his another sister Gangavva is
married to Mahadeo Aannappa Gadade.
(b) On 27th September, 2015 there was a quarrel between
Aamsiddha Gadade and Mahadeo Gadade on account of
boundary line of the property. Hence, the complainant and
his brother Malappa had tried to resolve that dispute. On
account of quarrel, a complaint was lodged with the
concerned police station at the instance of Mahadeo
Gadade and hence, both the parties namely Aamsiddha
Gadade and Mahadeo Gadade were called at the police
station.
(c) At about 12.30 hrs, Ningappa and Siddhappa came near
house of the complainant on motorcycle and started
abusing the complainant. Ningappa was holding sword and
Siddhappa was carrying axe in their hands. At the same
time, Kanappa and Mahadu came at the said place and they
also started abusing the complainant. They were holding
sticks in their hands. Complainant called his brother
Aannappa and Lakkappa. At that time, all the accused
rpa 8/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
persons entered into the house of Aannappa and started
assaulting the inmates of house. Ningappa assaulted the
complainant on his head by sword. Others were also
assaulted by sword, axe and sticks. All of them were
treated at hospital. In view of the aforesaid incident, FIR
was registered with Umadi Police station vide C.R.No.44 of
2015 at the instance of Aamsiddha Avdhut Haladvadru.
7 Petitioners
ig in both these petitions have now
approached before this Court and submitted that the parties
involved in both these cases are closely related to each other. On
intervention of elderly persons, the dispute between them are
settled and, therefore, the FIR in the respective petitions may be
quashed and set aside with the consent of the respondent/
complainant. The complainant in C.R.No.45 of 2015 have
tendered an affidavit before this Court. Similarly, the injured
persons in C.R.No.45 of 2015, Shri Kanappa Avdhut Haladvadru
have also tendered affidavit. In the said affidavits it has been
mentioned that due to misunderstanding the complainant have
lodged the FIR No.45 of 2015 against the accused / petitioners in
W.P. No.4995 of 2015. It is further stated that they have no
objection to quash the aforesaid FIR.
rpa 9/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
8 The complainant in C.R.No.44 of 2015 namely
Aamsiddha Avdhut Haladvadru have also submitted affidavit
before this Court. In the said affidavit, it is submitted that due to
misunderstanding he has filed the FIR bearing no.45 of 2015 and
that he has no objection to quash the aforesaid FIR. Similarly,
the other injured persons in C.R.No.44 of 2015, namely Aannappa
Haladvadru, Yeravva Avdhut Haladvadru, Lakappa Avdhut
Haladvadru, Mahadevi Annappa Haladvadru have also tendered
affidavits reiterating the version of the complainant therein.
9 Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondents in both the petitions representing the accused and
complainant have submitted that the parties involved in both the
complaints are closely related to each other. Some of them are
brothers. It is submitted that parties have arrived at amicable
settlement and, therefore, to put to an end to the dispute they
have agreed to withdraw the proceedings against each other. It is
submitted that in view of the said settlement, the respective
complainants and the injured persons have consented for
quashing the impugned FIRs which are subject matter of both the
petitions. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the
Apex Court as well as this Court.
rpa 10/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
(1) 2014(6) SCC 466 Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
(2) 204(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 93 B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr.
(3) 2012(12) S.C.C. 401, Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh
Rana Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
(4) 2008(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 584 Abasaheb Yadav
Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra
(5) 2013 (3) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 494, Raju @ Viswas
Bharatrao Shitole & Ors. Vs. Stat of
Maharashtra & Anr.
(6) 2010 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 229, Anjusingh
Pramodsingh Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr.
(7) Criminal Application No.2172 of 2009, Santosh
Kaluram Landage & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.
10 It is submitted by the learned counsel representing
both the parties that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the
impugned FIR's may be quashed and set aside. It is submitted
that no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings
pending as there are remote chances of conviction. It is
rpa 11/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
submitted that the Apex Court as well as this Court in decision
cited above have quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings
on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It is
submitted that in the decision cited, the Apex Court has quashed
and set aside the proceedings wherein the charge under Section
307 of IPC was also invoked. It is submitted that in the present
case also although the charge for the offences punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC has been invoked, on account of amicable
settlement, the said FIR's may be quashed and set aside.
11 Learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer
made by the petitioners. It is submitted that the accused have
committed serious offences and the Court should not interfere in
the impugned FIR's. It is submitted that the crime committed by
the accused is heinous and, therefore, the Court may not invoke
the writ jurisdiction or inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned FIR's.
12 We have perused the contents of the petition, the FIR
as well as the affidavits tendered by the complainant as well as
the injured persons. Learned APP have also pointed out the injury
certificates in respect to the injuries sustained by the injured
rpa 12/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
persons in the impugned complaints. We have noticed that the
accused in the respective complaints have used dangerous
weapons like sickle, axe and sword while committing the said
crime. Medical Certificate produced by the learned APP shows
that the injured Kanappa had sustained injury of parietal region.
Similarly, the injured Aannappa has also sustained wound injuries
in the parietal area of head. Medical certificate of Aamsiddha
Avadhut Haladvadru also refers to the incise wound in the
parietal area of head. Injury certificate of Lakappa Haladvadru
also reflects injury on the parietal area of head. In the FIR, it is
mentioned that some of the accused have given blows by
dangerous weapons like sword and sickle on the head of the
injured persons. In both the FIR's the offence under Section 307
of the IPC have been invoked.
13 The petitioners in both the petitions are impleaded as
accused in the FIR under challenge. The petitioners and the
respondent - complainant in respective FIRs have submitted
before this Court that the dispute between the accused and the
complainant have been amicably settled due to intervention of
elderly persons. It was submitted that on account of the
settlement, criminal proceedings initiated by the first informant
rpa 13/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
in both the FIRs may be quashed. It is submitted that first
informant have consented for quashing the impugned FIRs. They
have filed affidavits in respective petitions before this Court. The
victims/injured persons in both the complaints have also filed
affidavit stating that they have no objection for quashing the FIRs
as the dispute between both the parties are amicably settled and
they need to maintain harmonious relationship. It was submitted
that the parties involved in both the proceedings are closely
related to each other and hence they want to bury the hatchet
and lead peaceful life.
14 Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
respondent/first informant have submitted that on account of the
settlement between the parties, this Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may
quash and set aside the impugned FIRs. It was submitted that
there are remote chances of conviction and in the interest of
justice, proceedings initiated by the parties against each other
may be quashed and set aside.
15 Learned APP appearing for the State submitted that
the prayer of quashing may not be exercised in the present cases
rpa 14/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
on the ground of settlement. It was submitted that the accused
had used dangerous weapons for assaulting each other and have
attacked on vital parts of the injured persons. It was submitted
that the offences committed by the accused are against the
society.
16 It is pertinent to note that the offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code was invoked in the present cases.
Although the parties are related to each other, the manner in
which the offences are committed shows that they have no fear of
law. The accused used deadly weapons like sword, sickles and ax
for committing the offences. Taking into consideration the nature
and gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to quash the
impugned proceedings. Considering the nature of weapon used
and the nature of blows inflicted upon the injured persons, it is
not possible to give a finding that the accused have not
committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
Prima facie offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out.
This is not a fit case to exercise power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR which are
the subject matter of both the petitions.
rpa 15/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
17 In the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab &
Anr.1 the Apex Court has observed that Section 482 of the Code
as its very language suggests saves the inherent powers of the
High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior Court, to
prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. It begins with the word "Nothing in this Code"
which means that the provision is an overriding provision. It is
further observed that the guidelines for exercise of such powers
is provided under Section 482 itself i.e. thus, to prevent the abuse
of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
The power should be exercise very sparingly and with great
caution and circumspection.
18 In paragraph 58 of the aforesaid decision, the Apex
Court has categorized the proceedings with broad guidelines,
which can be quashed on the ground of amicable settlement
between the parties. The said paragraph reads as follows:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although the offences are not compoundable, it does
so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal
1(2012) 10 - SCC 303
rpa 16/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice
in the case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which
have harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well being of the society and it is
not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute amicably
or that the victim has been paid compensation,
yet
certain
compoundable
crimes
in law,
have
with or
been
without
made
the
permission of the Court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or
offences of moral turpitude under special
statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working on that capacity, the settlement
between the offender and the victim can have no
legal sanction at all. However, certain offences
which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family
dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim
and the offender and the victim have settled all
rpa 17/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceedings or criminal complaint or FIR if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly and likelihood of the offender being convicted
and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice
shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each
case will depend on its own facts and no hard-
and-fast category can be prescribed."
19 In paragraph 61 of the said decision, the Apex Court
has observed that before exercising power of quashing, 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. It is further observed that such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society. Paragraph 61 of the said decision reads thus:
"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
rpa 18/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
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 favour
rpa 19/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
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."
20 Thus, the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has
laid down the principle that in respect of serious offences or
rpa 20/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
offences of mental depravity, the powers of quashing should not
be exercised and mere settlement between the parties would not
be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court.
21 Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon
the decision of the Apex Curt in the case of Narinder Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2 It is submitted that the Apex
Court in the aforesaid decision was pleased to quash the FIR
wherein the charge under Section 307 of the IPC was invoked. It
is further submitted that the Court in the said decision has
considered the fact that prosecution would not result into
conviction.
22 In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court was pleased
to observe that the question is as to whether an offence under
Section 307 of the IPC falls within the parameter laid down in
Gian Singh's (Supra) case. It is further observed that the first
limb of this question is to reflect the nature of the offence. The
charge against the accused in such cases is that he had
attempted to take life of another person (victim). On this touch
stone should we treat it as a crime of serious nature so as to fall
2 2014(6) SCC 466.
rpa 21/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
in the category of "heinous crime". Finding on 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 been treated as crime against the society and
not against the individual alone. Then, it becomes the solemn
duty of the State to punish crime-doer. Even if there is a
settlement/ compromise between the perpetrator of the crime
and the victim, that is of no consequence. The society demands
that the individual offender should be punished in order to deter
other effectively as it amounts to greatest good of the greatest
number of persons in a society. In paragraph 26 of the aforesaid
decision, the Apex Court was pleased to make the following
observations:
"26 Having said so, we would hasten to add that
though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s)
attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at
the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard
realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel
between the parties leading to physical commotion
and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties,
there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence
under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as well.
Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet
incorporates the provision of Section 307 Indian
rpa 22/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
Penal Code would not, by itself, be a ground to reject
the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse
to accept the settlement between the parties. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call
as to whether compromise in such cases should
be effected or not, the High Court should go by
the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the
bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely
whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate
parts of the body) and the nature of weapons
used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there
is a strong possibility of proving the charge
under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, once the
evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved,
the Court should not accept settlement between
the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of
prima facie assessment of the aforesaid
circumstances, if the High Court forms an
opinion that provisions of Section 307Indian
Penal Code were unnecessary included in the
charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of
compounding of the offence based on settlement
between the parties"
23 From the aforesaid observations, it can be adduced
that merely on an actionable charge under Section 307 of the
IPC, the Court may not refrain from exercising power of quashing
on the ground of settlement. However, it is open to the Court to
rpa 23/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
examine the nature of injury sustained, portion of the bodies
where the injuries were inflicted and nature of weapons used etc.
As stated above, in the case before us, we have examined the vital
aspects of the prosecution case, manner of assault, nature of
injuries, the vital parts where the injuries were inflicted and
nature of weapons used in the crime and we have no hesitation to
come to the conclusion that the accused have committed heinous
crime and it would not be justifiable to exercise the power of
quashing the present proceedings. On the basis of prima facie
assessment of the circumstances, in the present proceedings, it is
not possible to form an opinion that provisions of Section 307 of
IPC were unnecessarily invoked in the impugned FIR's.
24 In paragraph 29.6, the Apex Court in Narinder
Singh (Supra) case has categorically observed that the offence
under Section 307 of the IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and, therefore, are to be generally treated as
crime against the society and not against the individual one.
Apex Court further observed that it would be open to the High
Court to examine as as to whether incorporation of Section 307 of
the IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the
rpa 24/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
charge under Section 307 of 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
injures 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 latter case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding
the offence based on complete settlement between the parties.
The Court also can 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. The Apex Court was
pleased to quash the proceedings in the facts and circumstances
of the said case. However, on the basis of the observations made
in the said decision, we find that this is not the fit case to exercise
power under the writ jurisdiction or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of quashing the
impugned FIR on the ground of settlement between the parties.
rpa 25/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
25 In the case of State of Rajsthan Vs. Shambhu
Shamb Kewat3. The Apex Court after referring to the earlier
judgments opined that the commission of offence under Section
307 of the IPC would be crime against the society at large and
not a crime against an individual only.
26 Considering the factual matrix of the present case,
the manner in which the crime is committed and taking into
consideration the observations made by the Apex Court in Gian
Singh (Supra) as well as Narinder Singh (Supra) case, we are
of the opinion that the power of quashing should not be exercised
in the present case on the ground of settlement.
27 In the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State
of Maharashtra4, Full Bench of this Court was pleased to
consider the question of power of this Court for quashing the
proceedings on the ground of settlement under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Case. In paragraph 7.10 of the said decision of
the Full Bench, it is observed as follows:
"7.10 We have held that the inherent powers
should be used in cases falling in either of the
3 2014(4) SCC 149
4 2008(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 584
rpa 26/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
categories stated in section 482 itself. This wide
power must be exercised with caution and
circumspection. The inherent powers of the
Court of competent jurisdiction can be invoked
for quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings but
the Court would pass such orders only if the
principles laid down in judicial dicta are satisfied
and either of the three objects stated in Section
482 of the Code are achieved by exercise of such
power. It is neither permissible nor proper for
the Court to provide a strait-jacket formula
regulating exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code, particularly in relation
to quashing, as it would depend upon the fact
and circumstances of a given case. No precise
and inflexible guidelines or strait-jacket formula
or catalogue of the circumstances in which
power should or should not be exercised, may be
laid down. Still, while recapitulating the enunciated
principles in the judgments of the Courts, particularly
the Supreme Court of in the cases of (I) State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajalal, AIR 1992 S.C. 604, (ii) Indian
Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd., 2006(6) S.C.C.
736, (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi
Shankar, 2006(7) S.C.C. 188, (iv) Popular Muthiah Vs.
State represented by Inspector of Public, 2006 (7)
S.C.C. 296, (v) Sanapareddy Maheedhar Vs. State of
A.P., 2008, A.I.R.S.C.W.11 and (vi) Som Mittal Vs.
Government of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.206 of
rpa 27/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
2008) decided on 21st February, 2008), and other well
accepted canons of criminal jurisprudence, we state
the principles as under:-
1 The High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code, may interfere
in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice very sparingly
and with circumspection;
2 Inherent power under section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code should not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution.
3 Power under section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is not unlimited. It can inter alia be
exercised where the Code is silent, where the power
of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a
specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not
fall within the purview of the Code because it involves
application of a special law;
4 The inherent power of the High Court can be
invoked in respect of matters covered by the
provisions of the Code unless there is specific
provision to redress the grievance of the aggrieved
party;
5 Inherent power under section 482 of the Code
rpa 28/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
overrides provisions of the Code but evidently cannot
be exercised in violation/contravention of a statutory
provision or power created under any other
enactment;
6 Power under Section 482 to quash proceeding
should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with
care and caution;
7 Such power should be used only when a clear
case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere
would lead to a miscarriage of justice;
8 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
may be exercised in following three circumstances.
(i) to give effect to an order under the Cr. P.C.
(ii)to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii)to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
9 Inherent power should be exercised to do the
right and undo a wrong;
10 In exercise of inherent power under Section
482 of the Code, Court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if the initiation/continuation of such
proceeding amounts to 'abuse of the process' of court
or quashing of the proceeding would otherwise serve
the ends of justice';
rpa 29/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
11 While exercising inherent power under Section
482 of the Code, High Court must refrain from making
imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment
which may be caused to concerned petitioner on
account of investigation of FIR or complaint;
12 While exercising inherent power under Section
482 of the Code, the High Court must all the while be
conscious of the fact that its exercise of such power
will not result in miscarriage of justice and will not
encourage those accused to repeat the crimes;
The inherent powers of High Court under
Section 482 of the Code, cannot be exercised in
regard to matters specifically covered by the other
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code;
14 For the purpose of quashing, the complaint has
to be examined as a whole, but without examining the
merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry
nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted while
examining prayer for quashing of a complaint;
15 The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code should not be such as to harm
legitimate expectation of the people and the society,
that the persons committing offence are expeditiously
rpa 30/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
brought to trial and if found guilty are adequately
punished;
16 Inherent powers may be used only when
reasonably necessary for the court to be able to
function and courts may not exercise inherent powers
merely because their use would be convenient or
desirable;
17 The exercise of inherent power would be
necessary whenever it is just or equitable and it
should be to ensure observance of the due process of
law, to prevent improper vexation or oppression and
to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair
trial; and
18 While passing an order quashing FIR or
criminal proceedings, as the case may be, it may be
appropriate for the Court to examine the impact of
such an order upon the system of administration of
criminal justice and the social fabric. This, of course,
is not a determinative factor but only a relevant
consideration.
28 In the concluding paragraph of the aforesaid decision,
the Full Bench has observed that the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code include powers to quash FIR,
investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the
rpa 31/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
High Court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and
ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of
justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Court, depending upon the facts of a given case. These
powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions
of the code including Section 320 of the Code. The Court could
exercise this power in offences of any kind, whether
compoundable or non compoundable. However, such inherent
powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and in
conformity with the precepts indicated in paragraph 7.10 of this
Judgment.
29 We have perused the affidavit tendered by the
complainant and the injured person in the respective crimes
which are the subject matter of the present petitions. In the
affidavits tendered by the original complainant in C.R.No.45 of
2015, which is the subject matter of Criminal Writ Petition
No.4995 of 2015. It is mentioned that due to misunderstanding
he has filed the impugned FIR and he states that now he has no
objection to quash the aforesaid FIR. Similarly, the complainant
in C.R.No.44 of 2015 has stated that he has filed the FIR bearing
rpa 32/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
C.R.No.44 of 2015 due to misunderstanding and that he has now
no objection to quash the proceedings. It is pertinent to note that
both the FIR's are relating to the incident of assault with deadly
weapons wherein the accused are named and specific overtact is
attributed to them. It is pertinent to note that the victims had
sustained injuries on their person and hence it is difficult to
digest that the complaints were lodged due to misunderstanding.
We have also noted the injuries sustained by the injured persons
as reflected in the medical case papers. The injuries are in
parietal region / parietal area of head etc. We have also noted
that the accused in C.R.No.44 of 2015, have given blow on the
head of the injured by sword. Similarly, the accused in C.R.No.45
of 2015 have inflicted blow on the head of the injured persons by
sickle and sword. The other accused were armed with sticks.
Thus, the use of deadly weapons by one group against the
another and inflicted blows on the person of the opponents which
includes vital parts of the body, clearly shows that the accused
have committed serious crime which can be termed as heinous.
30 In another decision of Apex Court in case of State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak and others 5, the Apex Court had
5 (2014) 10 SCC 285
rpa 33/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
considered the similar issue of quashing proceeding on account of
amicable settlement. In the factual matrix of the said case, the
accused was charged with an offence under Section 307 of IPC.
In paragraph 10 of the said decision, the Apex Court was pleased
to observe that the crime alleged to have been committed by the
accused persons was a crime against the society at large. It is
further observed that Criminal Law is designed as a mechanism
for achieving social control and its purpose is the regulation of
conduct and activities, within the society. It is also observed that
the High Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury
to the person and since the accused persons had received the
monetary compensation and settled the matter, the crime as
against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger
objective to achieve, that is, safety and protection of the people at
large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the
individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed
by anyone and money would not be a substitute for the crime
committed against the society. Taking a lenient view on a serious
offence like the present one, will leave a wrong impression about
the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal
acts, which will endanger the peaceful coexistence and welfare of
the society at large.
rpa 34/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
31 In the decision referred to hereinabove in the case of
Narinder Singh and others (supra), it has been observed that
any person committing criminal acts, is subject to penal schemes,
which may be of various kinds. Mostly punishment is either of
imprisonment or monetary or both. Imprisonment can be rigorous
or simple in nature. Why are those persons who commit offences
subjected to penal consequences? There are many philosophies
behind such sentencing justifying these penal consequences. The
philosophical/ jurisprudential justification can be retribution,
incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence,
rehabilitation, or restoration. Any of the above or a combination
thereof can be the goal of sentencing. The Apex Court in the said
decision has further observed that in various countries,
sentencing guidelines are provided, statutorily or otherwise,
which may guide Judges for awarding specific sentence. In India,
we do not have any such sentencing policy till date. The
prevalence of such guidelines may not only aim at achieving
consistencies in awarding sentences in different cases, such
guidelines normally prescribe the sentencing policy as well,
namely, whether the purpose of awarding punishment in a
particular case is more of a deterrence or retribution or
rehabilitation etc. In the absence of such guidelines in India, the
rpa 35/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
Courts go by their own perception about the philosophy behind
the prescription of certain specified penal consequences for
particular nature of crime. For some deterrence and/or
vengeance becomes more important whereas another Judge may
be more influenced by rehabilitation or restoration as the goal of
sentencing. Sometimes, it would be a combination of both which
would weigh in the mind of the Court in awarding a particular
sentence. However, that may be a question of quantum. It is
further observed by the Apex Court that what follows from the
discussion behind the purpose of sentencing is that if a particular
crime is to be treated as crime against the society and/or heinous
crime, then the deterrence theory as a rationale for punishing the
offender becomes more relevant, to be applied in such cases.
Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated against
the society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the
offender.
32 In view of the law laid down in various decisions
referred to hereinabove and on considering the factual aspects of
the present case, we are not inclined to exercise the powers
under writ jurisdiction and or the inherent power under Section
482 of the Code. We have noted that the petitioners accused have
rpa 36/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
committed a serious crime against the society. The dispute is not
of private nature. The offence, as submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners, is not only between two individuals. The
complainant cannot settle the dispute by filing an affidavit, which
is in respect to a crime which is against the society at large. In
such crime, he is not only an aggrieved party but the entire
society is concerned with such crime. The petitioners accused, if
exonerated in a particular crime, may resort to similar crime with
other members of the society. Therefore, no leniency can be
shown to such accused accused who have indulged into crimes of
serious nature. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the
proceedings which are initiated against the petitioners. The
application preferred by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.
33 We clarify that the observations made in this
judgment about the complicity of the petitioners are made only
for the limited purpose of considering the case under Section 482
for quashing on the ground of settlement. All contentions of the
petitioners before the Trial Court are kept open. The Trial Court
will not be influenced by these observations at the time of trial.
34 In view of the above, We pass the following order:
rpa 37/37 wp-4995-5004-15(2).doc
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Rule is discharged.
(ii) Criminal Writ Petition No.4995 of 2015 is
dismissed.
(iii) Criminal Writ Petition No.5004 of 2014 is
dismissed.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
