Justice G. Satapathy while quashing the criminal proceeding because of compromise u/s 493 of IPC which is compoundable in nature, noted that there isn’t a list of cases whose proceedings can be quashed based on compromise, but if in case of the compromise the conviction of the offender is a remote and bleak possibility, and continuance of criminal case would be futile exercise of power, then the criminal cases can be quashed. It was also clarified that in no way the offenses of mental depravity can be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding against him as well as the order taking cognizance of the offenses dated 17.02.2018 on the ground of compromise. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the informant have compromised and the same was not disputed by the informant.
But the learned AGA has submitted that although the offense U/s .323/417/506 of IPC are compoundable offenses, but the offense U/S.493 of IPC is not compoundable in nature and the criminal offense with this offense should not be quashed.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court first noted the facts of the case, according to which the informant has lodged an FIR against the petitioner for the commission of offenses U/Ss.498-A/494/312/313/323/294/506/379/34 of IPC, but after the investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the commission of an offense punishable U/Ss.493/417/323/506 of IPC under which cognizance has been taken. Out of these offenses, it was noted that the offense u/s 493 IPC is neither cognizable nor compoundable. It is also important to note that the informant has filed an affidavit indicating the amicable settlement of the matter between her and the petitioner and has even stated that she has no objection if the petitioner is dropped as she wants to start a new life.
The court then went on to note the well-settled law regarding the power to quash a criminal proceeding in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction which is distinct and differs from the power of a criminal court compounding the offense u/s 320 of CrPC, it was also noted that cases can be quashed on the ground of settlement of dispute depending on the facts and circumstances of individual cases, but heinous and serious of mental depravity or under special statues cannot be quashed even though the victim or victim’s family member and offender have settled the dispute amicably. It was further noted that inherent power has wide plentitude with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised in accordance with the law viz. to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. The court then noted that what cases can be quashed because of compromise between the parties, cannot be precisely prescribed or no inflexible guidelines can be laid down, but the criminal proceeding in suitable cases can be quashed if in view of the compromise between the offender and the victim, there would be a remote and bleak possibility of conviction of the offender and, thereby, the continuation of the criminal case would be a futile exercise of the power of the Court, which would in any way prevent the wastage of time of the Court. It was further clarified that offenses of mental depravity by no stretch of the imagination can be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Then the court came to the current factual scenario and it was noted that if the petitioner is sent for trial, then the inevitable consequence in case the victim does not support the prosecution case is that the trial would result futile and there is a remote or bleak possibility of conviction. Further, it was noted that the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is being done because of the compromise and not on merit.
The Decision of the Court:
It was noted that the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would be a waste of time and the court quashed the criminal proceedings. And the CRLMC was allowed.
Case Title: Bijay Ku. Singh v. State of Odisha and Another
Coram: Justice G. Satapathy
Case No.: CRLMC NO.2145 of 2018
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA; Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Advocate for Informant
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 .
0 Comments