Summary
The Supreme Court quashed, on the basis of a compromise, a 1991 prosecution summoned under Sections 307/149 IPC and other provisions, holding that the High Court confused compounding with quashing under Section 482 CrPC and that, on the nature of the injury, the weapons and the surrounding facts, no case under Section 307 was made out and the matter was not one in which settlement had to be refused.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was right to refuse to quash proceedings on the basis of a settlement only because Section 307 IPC was invoked and the offence was not compoundable.
- Whether, on the injuries, the weapons and the circumstances, the case attracted Section 307 IPC (alone or with Section 149) so as to bar quashing on settlement.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court held that the inherent power to quash on settlement is distinct from and wider than compounding, and exercised it because continuing the trial after the settlement would be futile and an abuse of process. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 20, 23)
- Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Contrasted with Section 482: compounding is confined to the offences listed in Section 320, whereas quashing on settlement is guided by the ends of justice; the High Court erred by treating the matter as one of compounding. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860Quoted in full; applying the test in Laxmi Narayan (nature of injury, part of body, weapon used), the Court held that the overt acts attributed to the appellants did not bring the case within Section 307. (¶¶ 9, 12, 17, 18, 19)
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The only specific role (firing a rifle, which caused no injury) was attributed to a co-accused since deceased; the facts did not make out a common object of the appellants for an offence under Section 307. (¶¶ 14, 15, 19)
- Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court observed that at the highest the facts could amount to an offence under Section 326, which on the facts did not have such a harmful effect on society as to bar quashing on settlement. (¶¶ 20, 22)
Held
- Quashing criminal proceedings on settlement under Section 482 CrPC is different from compounding under Section 320; the High Court erred in dismissing the petition merely because an offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be compounded (Gian Singh followed). (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or summons does not require a hands-off approach. After chargesheet, charge or during trial, the court may examine whether the section has been added for its own sake by looking at the nature of injuries, whether vital parts were hit, and the weapons used (Laxmi Narayan and Narinder Singh applied). (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Here the police had filed a closure report finding the complaint a counter-blast; the firing allegation caused no injury and was attributed only to a deceased co-accused; the allegations against the others were general; and the only significant injury was a fracture of the tip of a finger, said to be caused by lathis or iron bars. On these facts no offence under Section 307, alone or with Section 149, was made out. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)
- At the highest the offence could be one under Section 326 IPC; on the facts, it was not a crime with such harmful effect on the public that a settlement should be refused. Given that the incident was about 33 years old, the cross-case had been settled, and the State left the matter to the Court, the settlement was given effect by quashing the proceedings (Ramgopal followed). The Court said it reached this conclusion on the facts of this case. (¶¶ 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order of 19.01.2023 set aside; the complaint case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad quashed.