No quashing of Sec.498A IPC case when allegations are of Sec.307 IPC as well

 

 Noting that it is settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has denied compounding of offences under Section 307 (attempt to Murder) and Section 498-A (Cruelty to wife) read with Section 34 of IPC based on compromise between the party.

The single-judge bench of Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava observed that the allegations are serious in nature and therefore quashing of FIR for the offences under Sections 307, 498-A, 34 of IPC only on the basis of settlement between the accused persons and the complainant is 'not appropriate' in the eyes of law.

The factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of the High Court, who has recorded statement of complainant/ respondents had submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. The verification report further stated that as per Section 320 of CrPC, the offences under Sections 307, 498- A, 34 of IPC are not compoundable.

It was alleged by the complainant-respondent that immediately after marriage, petitioners started exploiting her and demanded a bike as dowry. The Court was informed about the incident to her family members, upon which her father tried to resolve the issue but remain failed. On on night, the mother-in-law & sister-in-law with the help of complainant's husband dragged the complainant by making knot in her neck and also brutally beaten her with intention to kill her. Being aggrieved and left with no other option, she lodged the FIR against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the Police and charges have been framed by the Court below.

Thereafter, during pendency of trial, by the intervention of respectful members of the society, the petitioners and respondent have cleared bilateral doubts and complainant-respondent had expressed her desire not to continue with the case against the petitioners.

Read also : SC to HCs: Do not use Sec.482 CrPC to quash FIRs unless no Offence is madeout on plain reading, Read Order

Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited legal positions decided in precedents set by Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2012 Latest Caselaw 527 SC, Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ANR., 2014 Latest Caselaw 202 SC, 

 The Court at the outset noted that the powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly administrative and partly judicial. Citing SC Judgement in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami wherein it was held that the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, “to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice.”, the Court observed:
"The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that their powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial."

  The Court then went onto note a slew of Top Court Rulings on the particular line of the legal preposition.

 -State of M.P Vs. Manish & Ors, 2015 Latest Caselaw 443 SC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed and held when it comes to the question of compounding an offence under Sections 307 and 34 IPC, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held to be an offence between the private parties simpliciter. It is observed that such offences will have a serious impact on the society at large. It is further observed that where the accused are facing trial under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, as the offences are definitely against the society, accused will have to necessarily face trial and come out unscathed by demonstrating their innocence. 

 -State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak, 2019 Latest Caselaw 268 SC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has had an occasion to consider whether the High Court can quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction and Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid point has specifically observed that as offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable as well as offence under Section 307 is not a private dispute between the parties inter se, but is a crime against the society, quashing of the proceedings on the basis of a compromise is not permissible.

-State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalyan Singh, 2019 Latest Caselaw 8 SC, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, 2019 Latest Caselaw 165 SC which shares the similar above view. 

Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ANR. , 2014 Latest Caselaw 202 SC,  wherein the Apex Court has held that the offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed. Its further corroboration with the medical evidence or other evidence is to be seen, which will be possible during the trial only.

 

In view of the above, the Court noted that offences in the present matter are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 

 

"The power conferred under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of CrPC can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves but such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc."

The petition was thus dismissed accordingly.

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure