Supreme Court has issued guidelines on quashing of First Intimation Report:
The supreme court of india has issued few guide lines on the suppressing of criminal proceeding of a non compoundable offense by using the basic powers.
A Supreme Court bench of Justice A.K.Sikri and Justice K.S.Radhakrishnan has issued guidelines using the fundamental powers of High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of a settlement between the parties. SC was considering the question whether a serious offence like S.307 under IPC be suppressed only because the both parties have compromised.
The Court detailed the scope of section320 IPC which allow proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that nopermission is required under Section 320 from the Court in those cases which are compoundable even though the Court has unrestricted power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320 is acceptable only when the offences are minor or no serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is allowed but it also requires the approval of the Court. In so far as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the unrestricted powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are suppressed. Outline of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana which has been followed and further detailed in so many cases thereafter and following points have been noted.
One has to keep in mind that the delicate 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 using basic jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code. Once, it is found that compounding allowed only if an offence is covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and the Court in such cases is guided only 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. Three Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Justice Lodha has interpreted 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. The power of compounding of offences inclined to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal law 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”
However it is not right to leave the serious crimes just which will be a threat to public only because the party and victim have compromised yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. Certain serious offences like murder, dacoity, rape etc. or other mental depravity offences under IPC. In such a case the settlement between the offender and the victim can’t be sanctioned legally at all.
Still, certain crimes which vigorously and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or matrimony crimes such as dowry, etc. or the family issues, such a offense is not compoundable, the HC may within the framework of its fundamental power has right to quash the criminal proceeding or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement. The above mentioned list is illustrative and not exhaustive”, said the Court.
After completing discussion following guidelines have be issued:
(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.
(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 predominantly 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment