Back
High Court Of Orissa
R. C. Ratan
SANATAN RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 672 Of 1989
Decided On : 06/25/1990
CRIMINAL REVISION - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES - COMPOUNDING OF NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES - INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT - SECTION 321 CR. P. C. - WITHDRAWAL FROM PROSECUTION - DISCRETION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT - INTERFERENCE BY THE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash cognizance of offences taken against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including rioting, causing damage to property, theft, and attempt to cause death. They claimed that the informant, a bus owner, had lodged a false FIR against them due to a grievance against their involvement in a movement against bus owners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it is difficult to interfere with the cognizance taken by the trial court after receipt of the charge sheet unless materials are brought out to indicate that no case has been made out. The court also noted that the petitioners could agitate the question of their discharge after the framing of charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the court can quash cognizance of offences taken by the trial court after receipt of the charge sheet? 2. Whether the court can direct compounding of non-compoundable offences? 3. Whether the State Government has the discretion to withdraw from prosecution under Section 321 Cr. P. C.? 4. Whether the court can interfere with the State Government's decision not to withdraw from prosecution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it is difficult to interfere with the cognizance taken by the trial court after receipt of the charge sheet unless materials are brought out to indicate that no case has been made out. 2. The court held that it has no power to direct compounding of non-compoundable offences as it would be contrary to the legislative intent. 3. The court held that the State Government has the discretion to withdraw from prosecution under Section 321 Cr. P. C. 4. The court held that it can interfere with the State Government's decision not to withdraw from prosecution if it is exercised arbitrarily or unjustifiably.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the criminal revision and directed the State Government to consider the question of withdrawal from prosecution afresh within six weeks if it is satisfied that the parties have settled their dispute. The proceedings before the learned Magistrate were stayed for six weeks.
R. C. RATAN, J.
( 1 ) IN this revision, petitioners seek to quash cognizance of offences taken u/ss. 147/148/ 336/427/454/380/294/506/ 436 with 511 read with 149 I. P. C.
( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 25-3-1989 at about 12 noon, petitioners committed rioting being armed with deadly weapons endangered the life of the inmates of the informant in G. R. Case No. 75 of 1989 causing damage to the house and household articles. They committed theft of the antenna and booster of the Television by breaking open the house after rebuking in filthy language and attempted to cause death with threatening dire consequence. Petitioners threw fire with intent to destroy the house in furtherance of their common object. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 4-7-1989 and cognizance was taken on that basis. Against the aforesaid order, petitioners approached this Court in criminal revision No. 541 of 1989 and by order dated 11-12-1989 the order was set aside and matter was remitted back to the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for reconsideration. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.
( 3 ) BACKGROUND of the case as revealed from the revision petition is that prior to the alleged occurrence petitioners had launched a movement against bus owners of the locality. On account of success of the movement, bus owners, drivers and conductors nurtured grievance against petitioners who took active part in the movement. Of the petitioners, some are practising advocates who took part in the movement. On account of this, it is claimed by petitioners that informant who is a bus owner lodged an FIR on false allegations.
( 4 ) WHEN cognizance is taken, after receipt of charge sheet, it is difficult to interfere with the same unless some materials are brought out to indicate that accepting entire materials collected by the investigating agency, no case has been made out. That is not the case made out by the petitioners. Besides, after appearance, when charge would be framed against the accused persons, they can agitate the same question for their discharge. Falsity of the offence made out can only be determined at trial.
( 5 ) MR. P. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have compounded the offence with the informant and accordingly, a direction should be given to the trial court for compounding the offence on an application being filed to that effect in the trial court. Normally, prayer is reasonable. However, from out of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken, some are not compoundable. When the offences are not compoundable no court has jurisdiction under any provision of Cr. P. C. either to compound the offence or to permit such compounding specially, when, the legislative intention is that the offence would not be permitted to be compounded. Parliament in its wisdom has classified the offence as compoundable without permission of the Court, compoundable with permission of the court and others not compoundable. Inherent jurisdiction u/ S. 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be exercised to defeat the legislative intention.
( 6 ) MR. Palit has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 Cri LJ 121 : AIR 1988 SC 2111 (Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan) where relying upon an earlier decision as reported in 1987 (3) JT 361 (Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A. P.) and after examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed it was observed that it may be proper that trial court shall permit the parties to compound the offence u/s. 307 I. P. C. which is not compoundable. Accordingly, Supreme Court directed the trial court to accord permission to compound the offence after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied that the compromise agreed upon. In 1987 (2) JT 361 (supra) prayer was made for leave to compound the offence after conviction of the accused u/s. 326 I. P. C. which is not compoundable. This was accepted b
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
