Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M. R. Shah, JJ.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Appellant
Vs.
LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 349 and 350 of 2019
Decided On : 05-03-2019
(2012) 10 SCC 303; (2014) 6 SCC 466; (2017) 9 SCC 641: 2019 SCC Online SC 7; (2015) 8 SCC 307; (2014) 10 SCC 285; Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019; Criminal Appeal @SLP(Criminal) No.9859 of 2013; (2014) 4 SCC 149 – Relied upon
(2016) 12 SCC 179; (2016) 12 SCC 471; (2014) 15 SCC 29 – Referred
(2011) 10 SCC 705 – Distinguished
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 and 320 – FIR can be quashed on basis of compromise in cases of civil nature – In offences non-compoundable u/s 320, like one u/s 307 r/w 34, FIR should not be quashed particularly when investigation is in progress – Gravity of the offence and conduct of the accused as also antecedents of the accused are relevant considerations - Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
In view of the apparent conflict between the two decisions of the Court in the cases of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149, this matter has been referred to a Bench of three Judges.
Finding of the Court:
FIR for offences not compoundable should not be quashed.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court emphasizes that FIRs for offences that are not compoundable should not be quashed solely based on settlement between the parties, especially when investigation is ongoing and the offence is serious or heinous (!) (!) .
The Court clarifies that the power to quash under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, but this power should be exercised with caution, particularly for serious offences that impact society at large (!) (!) .
The Court highlights that offences like attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) are serious and generally considered crimes against society, not just private disputes. Therefore, such cases should not be quashed solely based on the fact of settlement between the parties (!) (!) .
The decision stresses that the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, their antecedents, and the stage of investigation or trial are relevant factors in deciding whether to quash proceedings. Mechanical quashing without considering these factors is not sustainable (!) (!) .
It is important to scrutinize whether the offence is of a social impact or private nature. For offences with a civil or private character, and where the dispute has been fully settled, quashing proceedings may be justified if continuation would be oppressive or unjust (!) (!) .
The Court notes that offences involving use of firearms, attempts to cause grievous hurt, or other serious acts, especially when investigation is still in progress, should generally not be quashed solely due to settlement, as they have implications beyond private interests (!) (!) .
The decision underscores that the timing of settlement, stage of investigation or trial, and the circumstances of the case are crucial in exercising the inherent powers. Early-stage settlements may favor quashing, but at advanced stages, proceedings should generally continue (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court advocates a cautious and case-specific approach, ensuring that the social impact of serious offences is duly considered, and that the principles of justice and public interest are upheld over a mere settlement between private parties (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019
A two Judge bench of this Court vide its order dated 08.09.2017, in view of the apparent conflict between the two decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, has referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges, and that is how the matter is placed before a Bench of three Judges.
1.1 Vide order dated 19.11.2018, since the same question of law is involved, this Court tagged the connected appeal with the main appeal.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8000/2013, by which the High Court has allowed the said application, preferred by the respondents herein/original accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'Accused'), and in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has quashed the proceedings against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu & others vs. Radhika and another (2011) 10 SCC 705, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
2.1 Office report dated 18.08.2017 indicates that service of show cause notice on the respondents is complete, and respondent nos. 1 to 3 are represented by Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Advocate, but during the course of hearing, nobody appeared for the respondents.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are, that an FIR was lodged against the respondents herein and two unknown persons at Police Station Raun, District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, which was registered as Crime No. 36/13. It was alleged that on 03.03.2013 at about 9:30 p.m., the complainant - Charan Singh, who is an operator of LNT machine is extracting sand of Sindh River at Indukhi Sand Mine and at that time firing from other side of river started and the counter firing from this side also started then he heard that take away your machine from here. It is alleged that some people came there from which Sanjeev (respondent no.2 herein), Lature (respondent no.1 herein), Sant Singh (respondent no.3 herein) and two unknown persons came near to the complainant and his machine and told him to run away, then somebody told to Sanjeev (respondent no.2 herein) to fire and then Sanjeev fired on the complainant and then they ran away. The complainant fell from the machine. The bullet hit the complainant on elbow of right hand. Somehow the complainant managed to reach the village and a person called a car and admitted the complainant in District Hospital.
3.1 That on 04.03.2013, the duty doctor in the District Hospital informed the police and on the basis of the statement of the complainant, a Dehati Nalishi bearing No. 0/13 was registered under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC.
3.2 That the medical examination of the injured complainant was conducted at District Hospital and five injuries were found on his body and injuries nos. 1 to 4 were opined to be caused by fire arm and injury no.5 was advised for x-ray.
3.3 That on 05.03.2013, the police reached on the spot and prepared spot map; statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the police seized simple soil, blood stained soil and other articles from the spot of the incident and prepared their seizure memos.
3.4 That the accused filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8000 of 2013 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused arising out of the FIR, on the sole ground of a compromise arrived at between the accused and the complainant.
4. That, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has quashed the criminal proceedings
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
