2021 Supreme(SC) 625

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
RAMAWATAR - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2011
DECIDED ON : 25-10-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Offence under SC/ST Act, 1989 can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.
(2) Powers of Apex Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between complainant/victim and accused.
(3) Ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on Court’s power to do complete justice – However, Apex Court cannot altogether ignore statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Quashing of criminal proceeding – Apex Court or High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to nature of offence and fact that victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers – Powers of Apex Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between complainant/victim and accused – However, powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or other Judicial forum – This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court – Pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before final Court, is sine qua non to involve superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice – Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post attainment of all legal remedies, annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible – Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide – Purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s) – Even though powers of Apex Court under Article 142 are wide and far-reaching, same cannot be exercised in a vacuum – Ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on Court’s power to do complete justice – However, Apex Court cannot altogether ignore statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law – Court is obligated to take note of relevant laws and will have to regulate use of its power and discretion accordingly. (Paras 10, 12, 13 and 14)

(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Abuse by caste name – Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as SC/ST Act, Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach – SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes – Act is also a recognition of depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes – Courts have to be mindful of fact that Act has been enacted keeping in view express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities – On other hand, where it appears to Court that offence in question, although covered under SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where alleged offence has not been committed on account of caste of victim, or where continuation of legal proceedings would be abuse of process of law, Court can exercise its powers to quash proceedings – On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if Court is satisfied that underlying objective of Act would not be contravened or diminished even if felony in question goes unpunished, mere fact that offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain Apex Court or High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Paras 15 and 16)

(C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Abuse by caste name – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Matter had been settled between parties and Complainant had filed application for compromise – In cases such as present, Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that complainant-victim has entered into compromise on volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress – Having considered peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, Court inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash instant Criminal proceedings with sole objective of doing complete justice between parties – Case of Appellant, from very beginning, has been that alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over pending dispute – It would not be incorrect to categorise occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though provisions of a special statute have been attracted in present case – Although Appellant may not belong to same caste as Complainant, he too belongs to relatively weaker/backward section of society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to victim – Appellant and Complainant lived in adjoining houses – Keeping in mind socio-economic status of Appellant, overriding objective of SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if present proceedings are quashed – Incident occurred way back in year 1994 – Nothing on record indicates that either before or after purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between parties – Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop present criminal proceedings against accused – In order to avoid revival of healed wounds and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate present settlement – It is appropriate to invoke powers under Article 142 of Constitution and quash the criminal proceedings to do complete justice between parties – Judgment and orders passed by Trial Court and High Court set aside. (Paras 7, 18, 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:

A civil dispute over the ownership and possessory rights of a piece of land between the Appellant and his neighbour took an ugly turn when the Appellant allegedly not only threw a brick on Complainant but also made filthy and slur remarks on her caste, which prompted the Complainant to lodge FIR No. 18/94 at Police Station O.E. Panna under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant and his co-accused were subsequently tried, which led to the Appellant’s conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and consequential sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/. The Appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench but his appeal was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2010.

Findings of Court:

It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Result : Appeal allowed.