A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab another

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.

9098 of 2024, (State Vs. Savej and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 613 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Behat, District Saharanpur, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.06.2024 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur.

2. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that parties settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under the aforesaid Sections on the basis of compromise dated 07.08.2024, which has been verified. A certified copy of the compromise as well as verification proceedings of compromise has been filed as Annexure- SA-2. It is further submitted that both the parties are neighbours and the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that as the applicants have already arrived at amicable settlement on 19.09.2024, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicants.

4. Heard, Sri Abhijeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gulab Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the younger brother of the first informant working at Owaish’s shop in the village and travels daily for his job. Due to old enmity between the first informant’s brother and applicants, on 12.12.2021 at 09:00 A.M., when his brother was at the shop, six unknown 2 persons armed with weapons came on two motorcycles, two of them shot at Parvez, due to which Parvez fell on the ground, the other co-accused attacked him with a sickle (hasia) and caused serious injury. Hearing the noise of the fire-shot, the first informant reached the spot and witnessed the attack, meanwhile 6 accused and the applicants fled from the spot threatening him with dire consequences. 5(i). Then the first informant and his brother (Parvej) came to the police station and on the basis of the medical certificate (Majroobi Chitthi), Parvez was immediately taken to Behat Government Hospital from where he was referred to Saharanpur Government Hospital wherein CT scan of the head was conducted, and a fracture in the frontal bone was found. 5(ii). As per medical report of the injured Parvej, lacerated wound size

2.5 cm x 0.3 cm back deep top of the head; lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.3 cm back deep on forehead 12 cm above right ear.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58) "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact 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 resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.."

7. Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692].

8. In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles 3 relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16) "16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent poser of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family or the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal Cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions 4 with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would case oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

9. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed.

10. The entire proceedings of Case No. 9098 of 2024, (State Vs. Savej and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 613 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Behat, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Saharanpur, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.06.2024 is hereby quashed.

11. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

12. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Ishan

9098 of 2024, (State Vs. Savej and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 613 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Behat, District Saharanpur, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.06.2024 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur.

2. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that parties settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under the aforesaid Sections on the basis of compromise dated 07.08.2024, which has been verified. A certified copy of the compromise as well as verification proceedings of compromise has been filed as Annexure- SA-2. It is further submitted that both the parties are neighbours and the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that as the applicants have already arrived at amicable settlement on 19.09.2024, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicants.

4. Heard, Sri Abhijeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gulab Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the younger brother of the first informant working at Owaish’s shop in the village and travels daily for his job. Due to old enmity between the first informant’s brother and applicants, on 12.12.2021 at 09:00 A.M., when his brother was at the shop, six unknown 2 persons armed with weapons came on two motorcycles, two of them shot at Parvez, due to which Parvez fell on the ground, the other co-accused attacked him with a sickle (hasia) and caused serious injury. Hearing the noise of the fire-shot, the first informant reached the spot and witnessed the attack, meanwhile 6 accused and the applicants fled from the spot threatening him with dire consequences. 5(i). Then the first informant and his brother (Parvej) came to the police station and on the basis of the medical certificate (Majroobi Chitthi), Parvez was immediately taken to Behat Government Hospital from where he was referred to Saharanpur Government Hospital wherein CT scan of the head was conducted, and a fracture in the frontal bone was found. 5(ii). As per medical report of the injured Parvej, lacerated wound size

2.5 cm x 0.3 cm back deep top of the head; lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.3 cm back deep on forehead 12 cm above right ear.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58) "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact 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 resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.."

7. Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692].

8. In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles 3 relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16) "16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent poser of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family or the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal Cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions 4 with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would case oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

9. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed.

10. The entire proceedings of Case No. 9098 of 2024, (State Vs. Savej and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 613 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Behat, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Saharanpur, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.06.2024 is hereby quashed.

11. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

12. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Ishan