Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S.Radhakrishnan, A.K.Sikri, JJ.
Narinder Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686/2014 (arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.9547 of 2013)
Decided On : 27-03-2014
(2003) 4 SCC 675 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Distinction – Court, u/s 320, is guided solely by compromise between the parties – In section 482, court is required to take a decision to meet the ends of justice – Power u/s 482 is not limited by section 320 (Para 12)
(2012) 10 SCC 303; (2003) 4 SCC 675 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – If it is treated a heinous crime, it will be crime against society – Such offender has to be punished – Settlement between accused and victim would be of no consequence. (Para 17, 18)
(d) Criminal Trial – Sentencing – Sentencing guidelines – Aim at achieving consistencies in awarding sentences – In absence of such guidelines, as in India, Courts go by their perception. (Para 17, 18)
(e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – An attempt to take the life of another person has to be treated as a heinous crime and against the society – a (Para 27)
2013 (14) SCALE 235; (2011) 10 SCC 705; 2013 (14) SCALE 235 – Relied upon
(2011) 13 SCC 311; 2012 AIR SCW 5333 – Referred
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – FIR u/s 307 IPC – Charge sheet filed – Evidence yet to be adduced – Long standing disputes between parties – Village elders continuously trying to make the parties to compromise – Efforts fructified – In view of settlement no witness likely to turn up to support prosecution – Despite nature of injuries, FIR and the proceedings ought to have been quashed. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
Accused persons were charged u/s 307/324/323/34, IPC.
They struck a compromise with the complainant and on that basis they prayed for quashing the FIR u/s 482 CrPC.
High Court, in view of injuries to the complainant, refused to invoke its extraordinary power u/s 482.
Finding of the Court:
FIR and the proceedings ought to have been quashed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
The legal principles outlined in the document emphasize the distinct nature of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 320 of the CrPC. The power under Section 482 is broad and inherent, allowing the High Court to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable cases, provided that such action is justified to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the judicial process (!) (!) .
A key consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence. Serious offences, especially those involving heinous acts or offences of moral depravity, are generally not suitable for quashing based on settlement, as they are deemed to be against society at large and not merely private disputes (!) (!) . Conversely, offences that are predominantly of a private or civil nature, such as those arising out of family disputes or civil transactions, may be quashed if the parties have settled their disputes and the continuation of proceedings would be futile or cause unnecessary hardship (!) (!) .
The document highlights that the mere settlement or compromise between parties does not automatically warrant the quashing of proceedings involving serious or heinous offences, especially those of a social or moral depravity. The courts must carefully examine whether the offence is of a serious nature, whether it affects society at large, and the likelihood of conviction based on the evidence on record, including the nature of injuries and the weapons used (!) (!) .
Timing of the settlement plays a crucial role; earlier settlements, particularly during investigation or before charges are framed, are more likely to be viewed favorably for quashing proceedings, especially if the evidence suggests a remote chance of conviction. However, when proceedings are at an advanced stage—such as during trial or post-conviction—the courts are less inclined to accept settlements for quashing, especially in cases involving serious offences like attempted murder (!) (!) .
The overarching principle is that the courts must balance the interests of justice, societal interest, and the specifics of each case. While settlement and compromise are significant factors, they do not override the importance of deterring serious crimes and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the courts are guided to exercise their discretionary power under Section 482 with caution, ensuring that the nature of the offence, the stage of proceedings, and the likelihood of conviction are all duly considered before quashing criminal cases based on settlement (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal framework recognizes the exceptional nature of quashing proceedings in serious offences, emphasizing that such actions are justified only when continuation would be futile, the offence is of a private nature, and the settlement indicates a genuine resolution that would serve the interests of justice without compromising societal interests.
JUDGMENT
A.K.SIKRI,J. –
1. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment/final order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.27343/2013. It was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for quashing of FIR No.121/14.7.2010 registered under Sections 307/324/323/34,IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 22.7.2013 entered into between the petitioners ( who are accused in the said FIR) and respondent No.2 (who is the complainant). The High Court has refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code on the ground that four injuries were suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injury No.3 were serious in nature. The High Court, thus, refused to accept the compromise entered into between the parties, the effect whereof would be that the petitioners would face trial in the said FIR.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties at length.
4. It may be stated at the outset that the petitioners herein, who are three in number, have been charged under various provisions of the IPC including for committing offence punishable under Section 307, IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder. FIR No.121/14.7.2010 was registered. In the aforesaid FIR, the allegations against the petitioners are that on 9.7.2010 at 7.00 A.M. while respondent No.2 was going on his motorcycle to bring diesel from village Lapoke, Jasbir Singh, Narinder Singh both sons of Baldev Singh and Baldev Singh son of Lakha Singh attacked him and injured him. Respondent No.2 was admitted in Shri Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. After examination the doctor found four injuries on his person. Injury No.1 to 3 are with sharp edged weapons and injury No.4 is simple. From the statement of injured and MLR’s report, an FIR under sections 323/324/34 IPC was registered. After X-ray report relating to injury No.3, section 307 IPC was added in the FIR
5. After the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in the Court against the petitioners and charges have also been framed. Now the case is pending before the Ld.Trial Court, Amritsar, for evidence.
6. During the pendency of trial proceedings, the matter has been compromised between the petitioners as well as the private respondent with the intervention of the Panchayat on 12.07.2013. It is clear from the above that three years after the incident, the parties compromised the matter with intervention of the Panchayat of the village.
7. It is on the basis of this compromise, the petitioners moved aforesaid criminal petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing of the said FIR. As per the petitioners, the parties have settled the matter, as they have decided to keep harmony between them to enable them to live with peace and love. The compromise records that they have no grudge against each other and the complainant has specifically agreed that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Further, both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other and withdraw all the complaints pending between the parties before the court. As they do not intend to proceed with any criminal case against each other, on that basis the submission of the petitioners before the High Court was that the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid FIR will be a futile exercise and mere wastage of precious time of the court as well as investigating agencies.
8. The aforesaid submission, however, did not impress the High Court as the medical report depicts the injuries to be of grievous nature. The question for consideration, in these circumstances, is as to whether the court should have accepted the compromise arrived at between the parties and quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
