Supreme Court sets aside quashing of FIR in serious offences: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar and others (22 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 160

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for serious offenses like attempted murder or robbery simply because the victim and the accused have reached a settlement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the limits of the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment emphasizes that certain offenses, due to their impact on society, cannot be treated as mere personal disputes.

The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment. Justice M.R. Shah authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The Supreme Court heard two criminal appeals together, both originating from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. These cases involved the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs) by the High Court based on compromises between the complainants and the accused, despite the serious nature of the alleged offenses.

In the first case, Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2019, an FIR was lodged against Dhruv Gurjar and others for offenses under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 294 (obscene acts), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, Cheeni @ Devasik Yadav, alleged that on 17 December 2012, Dhruv Gurjar, armed with a 12-bore gun, along with other accused, abused him and then shot at him, causing injuries on his forehead, left shoulder, and left ear. The High Court quashed these proceedings based on a settlement between the parties.

In the second case, Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2019, an FIR was registered against Tinku Sharma and others for offenses under Section 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) of the IPC, Sections 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (M.P.D.V.P.K. Act), and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The complainant, Malkhan Singh Yadav, reported that on 21 December 2012, the accused assaulted him and others, and robbed them of cash and mobile phones. The High Court similarly quashed these proceedings due to a compromise.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

In both cases, the accused approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings based on a compromise with the complainants. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, quashed the proceedings, stating that there was no chance of conviction and that continuing the trial would be futile.

The High Court did not consider the gravity of the offenses or the fact that they were non-compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC. The High Court also did not scrutinize the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the center of this case is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which states:

“Saving of inherent power of High Court. – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

This section grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the legal process and to ensure justice. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that this power is not unlimited and must be exercised judiciously.

Another relevant provision is Section 320 of the CrPC, which deals with the compounding of offenses. This section lists the offenses that can be compounded (settled out of court) by the parties involved. Offenses like attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) and robbery (Section 394 IPC) are not compoundable under this section, indicating their serious nature and the public interest involved in their prosecution.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that while the High Court has the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, it should not do so in cases involving serious offenses, especially those that are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

• The State argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIRs mechanically, solely based on the settlement between the complainant and the accused, without considering the gravity and seriousness of the offenses.
• It was submitted that the High Court failed to recognize that the offenses were against society at large and not just personal disputes between individuals.
• The State contended that the High Court misread the decision in Shiji (supra). A compromise does not automatically mean there is no chance of conviction. The prosecution may still prove the case with other evidence, even if the complainant turns hostile.
• The State highlighted that in Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2019, the accused were absconding and managed to get affidavits of compromise while evading arrest.
• The State relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, to argue that serious offenses cannot be quashed based on a compromise.

Arguments by the Accused:

• The accused argued that the High Court rightly exercised its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, as the complainant and the accused had settled the disputes amicably.
• They contended that the High Court rightly found that there was no chance of conviction and that continuing the trial would be an exercise in futility.
• The accused relied on the decisions in Jitendra Raghuvanshi vs. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Anita Maria Dias vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 290, and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 443, to support their claim that the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIRs for offenses under Sections 307, 294, and 34 of the IPC and Section 394 of the IPC, 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, solely on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused?
2. Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shiji (supra) while quashing the criminal proceedings?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, stating that it was not applicable to cases involving serious offenses. The Court clarified that Shiji (supra) was based on a civil dispute, and the High Court had misapplied it.
• The Supreme Court relied on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, to reiterate that serious and heinous offenses cannot be quashed based on a compromise.
• The Court also relied on State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29, to emphasize that the High Court should have scrutinized the facts of the case before quashing the proceedings.
• The Supreme Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307, and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, 2019 SCC Online SC 7, to reinforce that offenses under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are not private disputes but crimes against society.
• The decisions in Jitendra Raghuvanshi vs. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Anita Maria Dias vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 290, and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 443, were distinguished as they dealt with matrimonial or civil disputes, which are different from the serious offenses in the present cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Gravity of Offenses: The Court emphasized that offenses like attempt to murder and robbery are not mere personal disputes but have a serious impact on society. These offenses are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, indicating their severity.
• Misapplication of Precedents: The High Court had misapplied the principles laid down in Shiji (supra), which was meant for cases with a civil origin or private disputes, not for serious criminal offenses.
• Public Interest: The Court highlighted the public interest in prosecuting serious offenses to maintain law and order. Quashing proceedings based on a compromise in such cases would undermine the legal system.
• Potential for Conviction: The Court noted that even if the complainant turns hostile, the prosecution can still prove the case through other witnesses and evidence. Therefore, a compromise does not automatically mean there is no chance of conviction.
• Conduct of the Accused: The Court took note of the fact that in one of the cases, the accused were absconding and managed to get compromise affidavits while evading arrest, which raised concerns about the genuineness of the settlement.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot quash serious, non-compoundable offenses solely based on a compromise. The gravity of the offense and its impact on society must be considered.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are not unlimited. They must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offense and the public interest.
• Compromises in serious offenses do not guarantee that there is no chance of conviction. The prosecution can still prove the case with other evidence.
• The principles laid down in Shiji (supra) are not applicable to serious criminal offenses. They are meant for cases with a civil origin or private disputes.
• The conduct of the accused, such as absconding and evading arrest, is a relevant factor that the High Court must consider while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court and directed that the respective FIRs/investigations/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the respective accused in accordance with the law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not quash criminal proceedings for serious, non-compoundable offenses solely based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous Supreme Court decisions and clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the CrPC. It emphasizes that certain offenses are not merely private disputes but have a significant impact on society and, therefore, require prosecution in the public interest. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders that had quashed the FIRs. The Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings for serious offenses based solely on a compromise, without considering the gravity of the offenses and their social impact. The Supreme Court clarified that the principles in Shiji (supra) do not apply to such cases and that the prosecution can still prove the case even if the complainant turns hostile. The Court directed that the criminal proceedings against the accused should continue in accordance with the law.