Page 1 [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686/2014

(arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.9547 of 2013)

Narinder Singh & Ors. ……Appellants

Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the

impugned judgment/final order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No.27343/2013. It was a petition under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for

quashing of FIR No.121/14.7.2010 registered under Sections

307/324/323/34,IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 22.7.2013

entered into between the petitioners ( who are accused in the said FIR)

and respondent No.2 (who is the complainant). The High Court has

refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion invoking the provisions

of Section 482 of the Code on the ground that four injuries were

suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injury

No.3 were serious in nature. The High Court, thus, refused to accept

1

Page 2 the compromise entered into between the parties, the effect whereof

would be that the petitioners would face trial in the said FIR.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard counsel for the parties at length.

4. It may be stated at the outset that the petitioners herein, who are

three in number, have been charged under various provisions of the IPC

including for committing offence punishable under Section 307, IPC i.e.

attempt to commit murder. FIR No.121/14.7.2010 was registered. In

the aforesaid FIR, the allegations against the petitioners are that on

9.7.2010 at 7.00 A.M. while respondent No.2 was going on his

motorcycle to bring diesel from village Lapoke, Jasbir Singh, Narinder

Singh both sons of Baldev Singh and Baldev Singh son of Lakha Singh

attacked him and injured him. Respondent No.2 was admitted in Shri

Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. After examination the doctor found

four injuries on his person. Injury No.1 to 3 are with sharp edged

weapons and injury No.4 is simple. From the statement of injured and

MLR’s report, an FIR under sections 323/324/34 IPC was registered.

After X-ray report relating to injury No.3, section 307 IPC was added in

the FIR

5. After the completion of investigation, challan has been presented

in the Court against the petitioners and charges have also been framed.

2

Page 3 Now the case is pending before the Ld.Trial Court, Amritsar, for

evidence.

6. During the pendency of trial proceedings, the matter has been

compromised between the petitioners as well as the private respondent

with the intervention of the Panchayat on 12.07.2013. It is clear

from the above that three years after the incident, the parties

compromised the matter with intervention of the Panchayat of the

village.

7. It is on the basis of this compromise, the petitioners moved

aforesaid criminal petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing

of the said FIR. As per the petitioners, the parties have settled the

matter, as they have decided to keep harmony between them to enable

them to live with peace and love. The compromise records that they

have no grudge against each other and the complainant has specifically

agreed that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

Further, both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any

litigation against each other and withdraw all the complaints pending

between the parties before the court. As they do not intend to proceed

with any criminal case against each other, on that basis the submission

of the petitioners before the High Court was that the continuance of

the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid FIR will be a futile exercise

3

Page 4 and mere wastage of precious time of the court as well as investigating

agencies.

8. The aforesaid submission, however, did not impress the High

Court as the medical report depicts the injuries to be of grievous

nature. The question for consideration, in these circumstances, is as to

whether the court should have accepted the compromise arrived at

between the parties and quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings

pending against the petitioner.

9. The ld. counsel for the State has supported the aforesaid verdict

of the High Court arguing that since offence under Section 307 is non-

compoundable, the respondents could not have been acquitted only

because of the reason that there was a compromise/settlement

between the parties. In support, the learned counsel for the

respondent-State has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case

of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 13

SCC 311 wherein this Court held that since offence under Section 307 is

not compoundable, even when the parties had settled the matter,

compounding of the offence was out of question. Said settlement along

with other extenuating circumstances was only taken as the ground for

reduction of the sentence in the following manner:

“We must immediately state that the offence

under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of

Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in

4

Page 5 the present case is out of question. However, the

circumstances pointed out by the learned Senior

Counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard

to the sentence. The incident occurred on 17.5.1991

and it is almost twenty years since then. The

appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have

no previous criminal background. There has been

reconciliation amongst parties; the relations

between the appellants and the victim have become

cordial and prior to the appellants’ surrender, the

parties have been living peacefully in the village.

The appellants have already undergone the

sentence of more than two-and-a half years. Having

regard to those circumstances, we are satisfied that

ends of justice will be met if the substantive

sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to

the period already undergone while maintaining the

amount of fine.

Consequently, while confirming the conviction of

the appellants for the offences punishable under

Section 307 read with Section 34, Section 332 read

with Section 34 and Section 353 read with Section

34, the substantive sentence awarded to them by

the High Court is reduced to the period already

undergone. The fine amount and the default

stipulation remain as it is.”

10. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand,

submitted that merely because an offence is non-compoundable under

Section 320 of the Code would not mean that the High Court is denuded

of its power to quash the proceedings in exercising its jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He argued that Section 320(9) of the Code

cannot limit or affect the power of the High Court under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. Such a power is recognized by the Supreme Court in catena

of judgments. He further submitted that having regard to the

circumstances in the present case where the fight had occurred on the

5

Page 6 spot in the heat of the moment inasmuch as both sides were verbally

fighting when the petitioners had struck the victim, this assault was

more of a crime against the individual than against the society at large.

He further submitted that this Court in Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory

through Administrator 2012 AIR SCW 5333 had quashed the FIR

registered under sections 147,148,149,323,307,452 and 506 of the IPC.

11.We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court

under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those

offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only

difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is

required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though

the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence.

However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible

only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the

parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section

320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the

approval of the Court. In so far as serious offences are concerned,

quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the

discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is

exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed.

Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs.

State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and

6

Page 7 further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are

taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.

12.At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle distinction

between the power of compounding of offences given to Court under

Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal proceedings by the

High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it

under Section 482 of the Code. Once, it is found that compounding is

permissible only if a particular offence is covered by the provisions of

Section 320 of the Code and the Court in such cases is guided solitary

and squarely by the compromise between the parties, in so far as

power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, it is

guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice

would justify such exercise of power, although the ultimate

consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. Such a

distinction is lucidly explained by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303. Justice Lodha,

speaking for the Court, explained the difference between the two

provisions in the following manner:

“Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on

the ground of settlement between an offender and

victim is not the same thing as compounding of

offence. They are different and not interchangeable.

Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of

offences given to a court under Section 320 is

materially different from the quashing of criminal

7

Page 8 proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,

power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the

provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is

guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other

hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for

quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or

criminal complaint is guided by the material on record

as to whether the ends of justice would justify such

exercise of power although the ultimate consequence

may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and

Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may

quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in

exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the

Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the

powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be

said that by quashing criminal proceedings in

B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this

Court has compounded the non-compoundable

offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does

exist the distinction between compounding of an

offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal

case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power

under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and

different although the ultimate consequence may be

the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of

indictment.”

13.Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320 and Section 482

of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the Court also described the

extent of power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing the criminal

proceedings in those cases where the parties had settled the matter

although the offences are not compoundable. In the first instance it

was emphasized that the power under Sec. 482 of the Code is not to be

resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the

grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly

8

Page 9 and should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted

in any other provision of the Code. The Court also highlighted that in

different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different

ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High

Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of

the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or

(ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

14.As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a

non-compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement

between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines:

“Where the High Court quashes a criminal

proceeding having regard to the facts that the

dispute between the offender and the victim has

been settled although the offences are not

compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,

continuation of criminal proceedings will be an

exercise in futility and justice in the case demands

that the dispute between the parties is put to an

end and peace is restored; securing the ends of

justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt,

crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the

public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously

endangers and threatens the well-being of the

society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer

only because he and the victim have settled the

dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid

compensation, yet certain crimes have been made

compoundable in law, with or without the

permission of the court. In respect of serious

offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other

offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences

of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

committed by public servants while working in that

9

Page 10 capacity, the settlement between the offender and

the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly

and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen

out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,

partnership or such like transactions or the offences

arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to

dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong

is basically to the victim and the offender and the

victim have settled all disputes between them

amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences

have not been made compoundable, the High Court

may within the framework of its inherent power,

quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint

or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such

settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the

offender being convicted and by not quashing the

criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and

ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is

illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will

depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast

category can be prescribed.”

Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following

words:

“The position that emerges from

the above discussion can be summarized thus: the

power of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the

power given to a criminal court for compounding the

offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent

power is of wide plentitude with no statutory

limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with

the guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to

secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse f

the process of any court. In what cases power to

quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR

may be exercised where the offender and the victim

have settled their dispute would depend on the facts

and circumstances of each case and no category can

be prescribed. However, before exercise of such

10

Page 11 power, the High Court must have due regard to the

nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,

rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even

though the victim or victim’s family and the offender

have settled the dispute. Such offences are not

private in nature and have a serious impact on

society. Similarly, any compromise between the

victim and the offender in relation to the offences

under special statutes like the Prevention of

Corruption Act, or the offences committed by public

servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot

provide for any basis for quashing criminal

proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal

cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly

civil flavor stand on a different footing for the

purposes of quashing, particularly the offences

arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,

partnership or such like transactions or the offences

arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or

the family disputes where the wrong is basically

private or personal in nature and the parties have

resolved their entire dispute. In this category of

cases, the High Court may quash the criminal

proceedings if in its view, because of the

compromise between the offender and the victim,

the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of the criminal case would put the

accused to great oppression and prejudice and

extreme injustice would be caused to him by not

quashing the criminal case despite full and complete

settlement and compromise with the victim. In other

words, the High Court must consider whether it

would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice

to continue with the criminal proceeding or

continuation of the criminal proceeding or

continuation of the criminal proceeding would

tantamount to abuse of process of law despite

settlement and compromise between the victim and

the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of

justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put

to an end and if the answer to the above question(s)

is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well

within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding.”

11

Page 12 15. The Court was categorical that in respect of serious offences or

other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely dacoity under

special statute, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

committed by Public Servant while working in that capacity. The mere

settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the

proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such

heinous crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court.

16.The question is as to whether offence under Section 307 IPC falls

within the aforesaid parameters. First limb of this question is to reflect

on the nature of the offence. The charge against the accused in such

cases is that he had attempted to take the life of another person

(victim). On this touchstone, should we treat it a crime of serious

nature so as to fall in the category of heinous crime, is the poser.

17.Finding an answer to this question becomes imperative as the

philosophy and jurisprudence of sentencing is based thereupon. If it is

heinous crime of serious nature then it has to be treated as a crime

against the society and not against the individual alone. Then it

becomes the solemn duty of the State to punish the crime doer. Even if

there is a settlement/compromise between the perpetrator of crime and

the victim, that is of no consequence. Law prohibits certain acts and/or

conduct and treats them as offences. Any person committing those

acts is subject to penal consequences which may be of various kind.

12

Page 13 Mostly, punishment provided for committing offences is either

imprisonment or monetary fine or both. Imprisonment can be rigorous

or simple in nature. Why those persons who commit offences are

subjected to such penal consequences? There are many philosophies

behind such sentencing justifying these penal consequences. The

philosophical/jurisprudential justification can be retribution,

incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation,

or restoration. Any of the above or a combination thereof can be the

goal of sentencing. Whereas in various countries, sentencing guidelines

are provided, statutorily or otherwise, which may guide Judges for

awarding specific sentence, in India we do not have any such

sentencing policy till date. The prevalence of such guidelines may not

only aim at achieving consistencies in awarding sentences in different

cases, such guidelines normally prescribe the sentencing policy as well

namely whether the purpose of awarding punishment in a particular

case is more of a deterrence or retribution or rehabilitation etc.

18.In the absence of such guidelines in India, Courts go by their own

perception about the philosophy behind the prescription of certain

specified penal consequences for particular nature of crime. For some

deterrence and/or vengeance becomes more important whereas

another Judge may be more influenced by rehabilitation or restoration

as the goal of sentencing. Sometimes, it would be a combination of

both which would weigh in the mind of the Court in awarding a

13

Page 14 particular sentence. However, that may be question of quantum.

What follows from the discussion behind the purpose of sentencing is

that if a particular crime is to be treated as crime against the society

and/or heinous crime, then the deterrence theory as a rationale for

punishing the offender becomes more relevant, to be applied in such

cases. Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated against

the society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the offender.

Thus, even when there is a settlement between the offender and the

victim, their will would not prevail as in such cases the matter is in

public domain. Society demands that the individual offender should be

punished in order to deter other effectively as it amounts to greatest

good of the greatest number of persons in a society. It is in this context

that we have to understand the scheme/philosophy behind Section 307

of the Code.

19.We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We

find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while

awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by

any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the

deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly

in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or

depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element

of “emotion” in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding

factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment

14

Page 15 by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What,

then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law? These

are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not

be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious

namely cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality

against the society and not parties inter-se. In such cases, the

deterrence as purpose of punishment becomes paramount and even if

the victim or his relatives have shown the virtue and gentility, agreeing

to forgive the culprit, compassion of that private party would not move

the court in accepting the same as larger and more important public

policy of showing the iron hand of law to the wrongdoers, to reduce the

commission of such offences, is more important. Cases of murder, rape,

or other sexual offences etc. would clearly fall in this category. After

all, justice requires long term vision. On the other hand, there may be,

offences falling in the category where “correctional” objective of

criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with

“deterrence” philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be

fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular

case the Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties

would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent

further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, it may hold

settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between

the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after

15

Page 16 examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of

action it should take in a particular case.

20.We may comment, at this stage, that in so far as the judgment in

the case of Bhandari (supra) is concerned, undoubtedly this Court

observed that since offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in

terms of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., compounding of the offence was

out of question. However, apart from this observation, this aspect is

not discussed in detail. Moreover, on reading para 12 of the said

judgment, it is clear that one finds that counsel for the appellant in that

case had not contested the conviction of the appellant for the offence

under Section 307 IPC, but had mainly pleaded for reduction of

sentence by projecting mitigating circumstances.

21.However, we have some other cases decided by this Court

commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In

Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR was lodged under sections

147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was

investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section

173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that

stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted

the settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier

judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR

SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under

16

Page 17 section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory

limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice,

or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so,

commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:

“Since the offences involved in this case are of

a personal nature and are not offences against the

society, we had enquired with learned counsel

appearing for the parties whether there is any

possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that

due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have

seen reason and have entered into a compromise.”

This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307,

IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society.

22. On the other hand, we have few judgments wherein this Court

refused to quash the proceedings in FIR registered under section 307

IPC etc. on the ground that offence under section 307 was of serious

nature and would fall in the category of heinous crime. In the case of

Shiji vs. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705 the Court quashed the

proceedings relating to an offence under section 354 IPC with the

following observations:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the impugned order. Section 320 of

the Cr.P.C. enlists offences that are

compoundable with the permission of the Court

before whom the prosecution is pending and

those that can be compounded even without

such permission. An offence punishable under

17

Page 18 Section 354 of the IPC is in terms of Section

320(2) of the Code compoundable at the instance

of the woman against whom the offence is

committed. To that extent, therefore, there is no

difficulty in either quashing the proceedings or

compounding the offence under Section 354, of

which the appellants are accused, having regard

to the fact that the alleged victim of the offence

has settled the matter with the alleged

assailants. An offence punishable under Section

394 IPC is not, however, compoundable with or

without the permission of the Court concerned.

The question is whether the High Court could and

ought to have exercised its power under section

482 the said provision in the light of the

compromise that the parties have arrived at.”

23.In a recent judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs.

Shambhu Kewat & Ors. 2013 (14) SCALE 235, this very Bench of the

Court was faced with the situation where the High Court had accepted

the settlement between the parties in an offence under Section 307

read with Section 34 IPC and set the accused at large by acquitting

them. The settlement was arrived at during the pendency of appeal

before the High Court against the order of conviction and sentence of

the Sessions Judge holding the accused persons guilty of the offence

under Section307/34 IPC. Some earlier cases of compounding of

offence under Section 307 IPC were taken note of, noticing under

certain circumstances, the Court had approved the compounding

whereas in certain other cases such a course of action was not

accepted. In that case, this Court took the view that High Court was not

justified in accepting the compromise and setting aside the conviction.

While doing so, following discussion ensued:

18

Page 19 “We find, in this case, such a situation does not

arise. In the instant case, the incident had occurred

on 30.10.2008. The trial court held that the accused

persons, with common intention, went to the shop of

the injured Abdul Rashid on that day armed with iron

rod and a strip of iron and, in furtherance of their

common intention, had caused serious injuries on the

body of Abdul Rashid, of which injury number 4 was

on his head, which was of a serious nature.

Dr.Rakesh Sharma, PW5, had stated that out of

the injuries caused to Abdul Rashid, injury No.4 was

an injury on the head and that injury was “grievous

and fatal for life”. PW8, Dr. Uday Bhomik, also opined

that a grievous injury was caused on the head of

Abdul Rashid. DR. Uday conducted the operation on

injuries of Abdul Rashid as a Neuro Surgeon and fully

supported the opinion expressed by PW5 Dr. Rakesh

Sharma that injury No.4 was “grievous and fatal for

life”.

We notice that the gravity of the injuries was

taken note of by the Sessions Court and it had

awarded the sentence of 10 years rigorous

imprisonment for the offence punishable under

Section 307 IPC, but not by the High Court. The High

Court has completely overlooked the various

principles laid down by this Court in Gian Singh

(Supra), and has committed a mistake in taking the

view that, the injuries were caused on the body of

Abdul Rashid in a fight occurred at the spur and the

heat of the moment. It has been categorically held by

this Court in Gian Singh (supra) that the Court, while

exercising the power under Section 482, must have

“due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime”

and “the social impact”. Both these aspects were

completely overlooked by the High Court. The High

Court in a cursory manner, without application of

mind, blindly accepted the statement of the parties

that they had settled their disputes and differences

and took the view that it was a crime against “an

individual”, rather than against “the society at large”.

We are not prepared to say that the crime

alleged to have been committed by the accused

19

Page 20 persons was a crime against an individual, on the

other hand it was a crime against the society at large.

Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for

achieving social control and its purpose is the

regulation of conduct and activities within the society.

Why Section 307 IPC is held to be non-compoundable,

because the Code has identified which conduct should

be brought within the ambit of non-compoundable

offences. Such provisions are not meant, just to

protect the individual, but the society as a whole.

High Court was not right in thinking that it was only

an injury to the person and since the accused persons

had received the monetary compensation and settled

the matter, the crime as against them was wiped off.

Criminal justice system has a larger objective to

achieve, that is safety and protection of the people at

large and it would be a lesson not only to the

offender, but to the individuals at large so that such

crimes would not be committed by any one and

money would not be a substitute for the crime

committed against the society. Taking a lenient view

on a serious offence like the present, will leave a

wrong impression about the criminal justice system

and will encourage further criminal acts, which will

endanger the peaceful co-existence and welfare of

the society at large.”

24. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has

approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307,IPC whereas

in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature

such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid

cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at

the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different

approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this

Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High

Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the

20

Page 21 Constitution of India. Stare Decisis is the fundamental principle of

judicial decision making which requires ‘certainty’ too in law so that in

a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is

discernable and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine

of stare decisis will lose its significance. The related objective of the

doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences

and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of

treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons faced with similar

circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law.

It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The

force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl

Llewellyn, by “that curious, almost universal sense of justice which

urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances”.

25.As there is a close relation between the equality and justice, it

should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under

Section 307 IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different

treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to

discuss the subject at length. It is for this reason we deem it

appropriate to lay down some distinct, definite and clear guidelines

which can be kept in mind by the High Courts to take a view as to under

what circumstances it should accept the settlement between the

parties and quash the proceedings and under what circumstances it

21

Page 22 should refrain from doing so. We make it clear that though there would

be a general discussion in this behalf as well, the matter is examined in

the context of offences under Section 307 IPC.

26. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes

between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say

that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours

and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario,

should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement. The answer

depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse.

The Legislators has categorically recognized that those offences which

are covered by the provisions of section 320 of the Code are

concededly those not only do not fall within the category of heinous

crime but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this

provision recognizes whereas there is a compromise between the

parties the Court is to act at the said compromise and quash the

proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered

within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, High Court is given

power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise

between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is

as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power,

both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of

indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of

above.

22

Page 23 27. In the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra), observations of this

Court to the effect that offences involved in that case were not offences

against the society. It included charge under Section 307 IPC as well.

However, apart from stating so, there is no detained discussion on this

aspect. Moreover, it is the other factors which prevailed with the Court

to accept the settlement and compound he offence, as noted above

while discussing this case. On the other hand, in Shambhu Kewat

(supra), after referring to some other earlier judgments, this Court

opined that commission of offence under Section 307 IPC would be

crime against the society at large, and not a crime against an individual

only. We find that in most of the cases, this view is taken. Even on first

principle, we find that an attempt to take the life of another person has

to be treated as a heinous crime and against the society.

28.Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious

offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another

person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard

realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the

parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either

or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence

under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-

sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself,

be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and

refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore,

23

Page 24 of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such

cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature

of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were

inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts

of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is

found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under

Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries

proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties.

On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the

aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that

provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge

sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence

based on settlement between the parties.

29.At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of

settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at

immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is

still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in

accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation.

Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as

narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but

the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its

discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above,

since the report of the I.O. under Section 173,Cr.P.C. is also placed

24

Page 25 before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go

into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical

evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect,

however, would be examined along with another important

consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties,

whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue

with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is

remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in

affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court

to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the

parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served

in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would

end in acquittal, in any case.

30.We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have

accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in

appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction

recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the

accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means

the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond

reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any

question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons

simply because the private parties have buried the hatchet.

25

Page 26 31.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the

following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving

adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and

exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the

settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the

offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of

the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal

proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where

the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this

power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that

basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding

factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on

either of the aforesaid two objectives.

26

Page 27 (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which

involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences

like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature

and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to

have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of

Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while

working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of

compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly

and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of

commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or

family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their

entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to

whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him

by not quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in

the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be

generally treated as crime against the society and not against the

individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision

merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the

27

Page 28 charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High

Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is

there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient

evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under

Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to

go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on

the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc.

Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally

be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High

Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of

conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the

former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the

criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible

for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based

on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court

can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties

is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their

future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section

482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those

cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged

commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the

High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the

28

Page 29 criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at

this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not

been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the

evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High

Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but

after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned

above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost

complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the

stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from

exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases

the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits

and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307

IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction

is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate

stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties

would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the

offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge

is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a

heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict

found guilty of such a crime.

32.After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid,

we proceed to discuss the case at hand.

29

Page 30 33.In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered

under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed,

whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner

herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of

recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into

compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the

Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for

quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the

copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the

compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when

respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the

Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the

said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise

and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It

was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony

between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace

and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court

should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.

34.We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which

weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement

between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor

alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court’s approach.

However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and

30

Page 31 inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel

us to take a different view.

35.We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the

basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that

the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons

because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature

of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent

statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been

trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”.

This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been

some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the

accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the

elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and

the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live

peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The

evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of

compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the

witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even

though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the

doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become

difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of

conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be

unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors

31

Page 32 into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise

between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising

out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station

LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.

36. Appeal is allowed. No costs.

………………………………J.

(K.S.Radhakrishnan)

………………………………J.

(A.K.Sikri)

New Delhi,

March 27, 2014

32