Bombay High Court
Waman Gorakh Dhaitadak vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
criappln3074.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3074 OF 2017
1. Waman Gorakh Dhaitadak
age 19 years, occ. agri.
2. Pralhad Babasaheb Dhaitadak
age 41 years, occ. agri.
3. Balasaheb Sunil Dhaitadak
age 45 years, occ. agri.
4. Pandurang Babasaheb Dhaitadak
age 44 years, occ. agri
5. Ajinath Eknath Dhaitadak
age 40 years, occ. agri
6. Gorakh Eknath Dhaitadak
age 43 years, occ. agri.
7. Raju Baburao Dhaitadak
age 42 years, occ. agri.
8. Narayan Baburao Dhaitadak
age 45 years, occ. agri.
All r/o Dhaitadakwadi, Tq. Pathardi
Dist. Ahmednagar Applicants.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Investigation Officer,
Pathardi Police Station,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Savitra w/o Arjun Dhaitadak
age 25 years, occ. agri
r/o Dhaitadakwadi, Tq. Pathardi
Dist. Ahmednagar Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 08:11:35 :::
{2}
criappln3074.17.odt
Mr. N.B. Narwade, advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent no. 1.
Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, advocate for respondent no. 2.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 27th JUNE, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashment of the criminal
proceeding initiated at the instance of respondent no. 2 registered
at Pathardi Police Station vide Crime No. 67/2016 for commission
of offence punishable under sections 436 and 143 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. It is informed that the parties have settled their differences
and have entered into compromise as a result of mediation of
elders in the village. It appears on perusal of the draft compromise
entered into between the parties on 13.06.2017 that a Regular
Criminal Case is presented at the instance of applicants herein
against the complainant and the parties have reached amicable
settlement. The parties are related to each other. The parties have
decided to amicably settle all pending disputes between them.
4. Accused and the complainant are present before the Court.
The terms of settlement are duly verified by each of the accused
and the complainant and the parties are identified by the
respective counsel representing them. The terms of settlement are
{3}
criappln3074.17.odt
read and recorded and marked 'X' for identification.
5. Though the offence alleged against the petitioners is of
serious nature, since the parties are resident of the same village
and are related to each other and they have decided to settle their
differences and have further admitted to withdraw the cases lodged
by them against each other, we are of the opinion that considering
the parameters laid down in the matter of Narinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6
Supreme Court Cases 466, the application can be disposed of in
view of the settlement reached between the parties. In paragraph
no. 31 of the judgment, the Honourable Apex Court has 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.
(II) When the parties have reached the
{4}
criappln3074.17.odt
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 predominantly 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
{5}
criappln3074.17.odt
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
{6}
criappln3074.17.odt
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 wold 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.
6. In the instant matter, apart from the fact that the parties are
from same village and related to each other, in view of settlement
reached between the parties, there is remote possibility of
conviction and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to
continue the criminal case initiated by respondent/complainant
and that, it would likely to cause prejudice to the accused. It also
needs to be mentioned that settlement has been reached between
the parties immediately after the alleged commission of offence and
the matter is still under investigation. In this view of the matter,
this Court would be at liberty to quash the criminal proceeding
initiated against the accused/applicants herein in view of
paragraph no. 31(viii) of the judgment in the matter of Narinder
{7}
criappln3074.17.odt
Singh (Supra).
7. For the reasons recorded above, application is allowed.
Criminal proceeding initiated against accused/applicants in view of
registration of Crime No. 67/2016 at Pathardi police station for
commission of offence punishable under section 436, 143 of the
Indian Penal Code stands quashed. Rule made absolute.
( A.M. DHAVALE ) ( R.M.BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
