Supreme Court clarifies limits on quashing FIRs in serious offences based on compromise: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 5 March 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 197

Judges: A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah (authored the judgment)

Can a compromise between a complainant and an accused in a case involving serious offenses like attempted murder lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the limits of High Courts’ powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This judgment sets important guidelines for when criminal proceedings can be quashed based on a settlement, particularly in cases involving non-compoundable offenses.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on 03 March 2013, at approximately 9:30 p.m., where Charan Singh, an operator of an LNT machine, was extracting sand from the Sindh River at the Indukhi Sand Mine. The incident involved firing from the other side of the river, followed by a confrontation where the accused, including Sanjeev, Lature, and Sant Singh, allegedly approached Charan Singh and his machine. Sanjeev allegedly fired at Charan Singh, who sustained a bullet injury on his right elbow. The incident led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) at Police Station Raun, District Bhind, for offenses under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Following the incident, a Dehati Nalishi was registered based on Charan Singh’s statement. A medical examination confirmed that Charan Singh sustained injuries from a firearm. Subsequently, the police conducted an investigation, prepared a spot map, recorded witness statements, and seized evidence from the scene.

The accused then filed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings based on a compromise with the complainant. The High Court, relying on the precedent set in Shiji @ Pappu & others vs. Radhika and another (2011) 10 SCC 705, quashed the proceedings. The State of Madhya Pradesh, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, particularly for offenses under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC. The State contended that the High Court had mechanically quashed the FIR solely based on the compromise between the complainant and the accused, without considering the gravity of the offenses. The State emphasized that the offenses were against society at large and not merely personal disputes between individuals.

The State also argued that the High Court misread the decision in Shiji (supra). The State highlighted that a compromise does not automatically mean there is no chance of conviction, as the prosecution could still prove the case through other witnesses or medical evidence. They pointed out that the investigation was ongoing, statements of witnesses had been recorded, and medical evidence had been collected.

Furthermore, the State argued that the accused were hardened criminals with multiple cases against them, posing a threat to society. They asserted that the High Court should have considered these factors before quashing the FIR, especially since the offenses were non-compoundable and against the public interest. The State relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, and Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, to support their position.

Submissions of the State of Madhya Pradesh

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR for offenses under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC solely based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused.
2. Whether the High Court properly applied the principles laid down in previous judgments of the Supreme Court regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Whether the decision in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 is in conflict with the decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgments. The Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings for offenses under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC solely based on a compromise. The Court emphasized that such offenses are serious crimes against society and cannot be quashed merely because the complainant and the accused have settled the matter.

The Supreme Court clarified that while the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, these powers must be exercised sparingly and with caution, particularly in cases involving heinous and serious offenses. The Court distinguished between cases that have a civil origin and those involving serious offenses against society. It stated that the decision in Shiji (supra), which allowed quashing based on a compromise, was not applicable to cases involving offenses like attempted murder.

The Court also harmonized its previous decisions in Narinder Singh (supra) and Shambhu Kewat (supra), clarifying that while Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides a wide power, it must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature and gravity of the offense. The Court reiterated that offenses under Section 307 IPC are generally treated as crimes against society and not merely private disputes.

The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to consider the antecedents of the accused and the fact that they had managed to enter into a compromise while absconding. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the gravity of the offense and the conduct of the accused before quashing the FIR.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The following table demonstrates how the Supreme Court viewed the authorities cited:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the severity of the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is considered a crime against society rather than a private dispute. The Court emphasized that such offenses cannot be compounded or quashed based on a private settlement. The Court also considered the conduct of the accused, who had absconded and then sought a compromise, and the fact that the High Court had not properly considered the seriousness of the allegations or the antecedents of the accused. The need to maintain public order and deter serious crimes also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) rather than factual aspects (30%). The Court focused on the legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the non-compoundable nature of offenses under Section 307 of the IPC. The factual aspects of the case, such as the compromise between the parties, were considered secondary to the legal principles and public interest concerns.

Logical Reasoning

The following flowchart illustrates the Court’s logical reasoning for the main issue:

Key Takeaways

• Limits on Quashing FIRs: High Courts cannot quash criminal proceedings for serious, non-compoundable offenses like attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) solely based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused.
• Seriousness of Offenses: Offenses under Section 307 IPC are considered crimes against society and not merely private disputes.
• Inherent Powers: The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offenses.
• Distinction from Civil Disputes: The principle of quashing proceedings based on a compromise, as seen in cases of civil disputes, does not apply to serious criminal offenses.
• Consideration of Antecedents: High Courts must consider the antecedents of the accused and the gravity of the offense before quashing criminal proceedings.
• Public Interest: The public interest in prosecuting serious offenses outweighs the private settlement between the complainant and the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be reinstated and proceeded against the accused in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts cannot quash criminal proceedings for serious, non-compoundable offenses like attempted murder (Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code) solely based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. This judgment clarifies and reinforces the principle that such offenses are considered crimes against society and not merely private disputes, limiting the scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This judgment reinforces the previous positions of law by clarifying that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, with caution, and not for serious offenses. It harmonizes previous decisions to establish a clear guideline for when a High Court can quash proceedings based on a compromise.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan clarifies that High Courts cannot quash criminal proceedings for serious offenses like attempted murder solely based on a compromise. The Court emphasized the non-compoundable nature of such offenses and their impact on society, reinforcing the need for the legal process to run its course. This decision sets a significant precedent, ensuring that serious crimes are not overlooked in favor of private settlements.