Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2014 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013]

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2) As  counsel  for  both  the  parties  expressed  their  willingness  to  

argue the matter finally at this stage, we heard the appeal finally.

3) This appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against  

the  judgment  and  order  dated  10.5.2013  passed  by  the  High  

Court in the petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 1 of 13

Page 2

The  said  petition  was filed  under  Section  482  of  the  Code of  

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

compounding/quashing  of  criminal  proceedings  arising  out  of  

Crime  No.  171/13  under  Section  307/34  of  IPC  registered  at  

Police  Station  Kotwali,  District  Vidisha  (M.P.)  and  consequent  

criminal  proceedings  bearing  Criminal  Case  No.  582  of  2013  

pending before  the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Vidisha.  The FIR  

was registered at the instance of Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter  

referred to as the complainant).

4) The  complainant  (respondent  No.3),  Deepak  Ghenghat  s/o  

Laxminarayan Ghenghat, had alleged that on 11.3.2013 at about  

9.45 p.m., while he was going to Baraipura Chauraha for buying  

Gutkha for his mother, Deepak Nahariya and Mukesh Nahariya  

(respondent Nos.1 and 2) met him near Sweepar Mohalla, Gali  

No.  1.   On  being  asked  by  respondent  No.1,  in  an  abusive  

language,  as  to  where he was proceeded to,  the complainant  

protested  against  the  use  of  such  foul  language.   At  this,  

respondent No.1 took out the sword which he was carrying and  

with an intention to kill the complainant, he inflicted a blow on his  

forehead  by  shouting  'you have  lodged the  report  against  my   

elder brother, today I will kill you'.  Respondent No.1, thereafter,  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 2 of 13

Page 3

inflicted blows above the ear on the back side of the head and on  

the left arm.  When the complainant informed that he would lodge  

a report with the Police, respondent No.2 caught hold of him and  

threatened that if he lodges the report, then he would not let the  

complainant reside in the  Mohalla.  By that time, brother of the  

complainant Suraj and one Preeti reached the spot and rescued  

the complainant.   

5) On the same date, the complainant lodged F.I.R. No. 171 of 2013  

at Police Station Kotwali, Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable  

under Sections 307 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. which  

triggered  the  criminal  investigation  and  complainant  Deepak  

Ghenghat  was  sent  for  medical  examination.  Thereafter,  on  

12.3.2013 police reached on the spot and prepared the spot map,  

recorded  the  statement  of  the  witnesses  under  Section  161,  

arrested the accused persons and seized certain articles.  

6) On 14.4.2013, articles which were seized were sent for forensic  

examination. After due and proper investigation charge sheet was  

filed on 6.4.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 307  

of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent filed Misc.  

Criminal Case No. 3527 of 2013 before the High Court of Madhya  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 3 of 13

Page 4

Pradesh,  Bench  at  Gwalior  under  Section  482  of  Cr.  PC  for  

quashing the criminal proceedings, arising out of the F.I.R. No.  

171/2013 against  the respondent  on the basis of  compromise,  

registered  on  11.3.2013  under  Sections  307  of  IPC read  with  

Section 34 of IPC.  

7) The High Court has accepted the said compromise after taking  

note of the submissions made before it at the Bar, and the fact  

that the complainant had also submitted that he did not wish to  

prosecute the accused persons as he had settled all the disputes  

amicably  with  them.  For  quashing  the  proceedings,  the  High  

Court has referred to the judgment of this Court in Shiji @ Pappu  

& Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. ; 2011 (10) SCC 705.

8) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State is before us in the  

present appeal. It is primarily submitted by the learned counsel for  

the State that the judgment in the case of Shiji @ Pappu & Ors.  

(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch  

as the incident in question had its genesis and origin in a civil  

dispute between the parties and having regard to the same the  

Court had accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings  

when it found that parties had resolved the said dispute between  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 4 of 13

Page 5

them. It  was pleaded that  on the contrary,  in the present case  

accused persons are habitual offenders and they had threatened  

the complainant  and extracted the  compromise  which was not  

voluntary.   The  learned  counsel  also  referred  to  the  injuries  

suffered by the complainant which are described in the report as a  

result of the medical examination carried out on the person of the  

complainant immediately after the incident. He pleaded that the  

offence under Section 307 of IPC was, prima facie, made out and  

for  such  a  heinous  crime  the  High  Court  should  not  have  

exercised  its  discretion  under  Section  482  of  the  Cr.  PC  and  

quashed the proceedings as the offence in  question was non-

compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.  

9) The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted  

that since the parties had settled the matter, the High Court had  

rightly accepted the compromise between the parties. This action  

of the High Court was justified as parties had buried the hatchet  

and wanted to leave peacefully.  He thus, pleaded that this Court  

should not interfere with the aforesaid exercise of discretion by  

the High Court.  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 5 of 13

Page 6

10) After examining the facts of this case and the medical record, we  

are of the opinion that it was not a case where High Court should  

have quashed the proceedings in exercise of its discretion under  

Section  482  of  the  Code.  We may,  at  the  outset,  refer  to  the  

judgment of this Court in Gulabdas & Ors. v. State of M.P.; 2011  

(12) SCALE 625 wherein following view was taken:-

“7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the  only  question  that  falls  for  determination  is  whether the prayer for composition of the offence  under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having  regard to the compromise arrived at between the  parties. Our answer is in the negative. This Court  has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences  which are not compoundable under Section 320  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  cannot  be  allowed to be compounded even if  there is any  settlement between the complainant on the one  hand and the accused on the other. Reference in  this regard may be made to the decisions of this  Court in Ram Lal & Anr. v. State of J&K; (1999) 2  SCC 213 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya  Pradesh;  (2008)  15  SCC  667.  We  have,  therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for  permission  to  compound  the  offence  for  which  Appellant Nos 2 & 3 stand convicted”.

11) A similar  situation,  as  in  the present  case,  was found to  have  

arisen in the case of  State of Rajasthan  v.  Shambhu Kewat,  

(2014)  4  SCC  149.   In  that  case  also,  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  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 6 of 13

Page 7

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 Sections 307/34 IPC.  

Some earlier cases of compounding of offence under Section 307  

IPC were taken note of, noticing that 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 the High Court was not justified  

in  accepting  the  compromise  and  setting  aside  the  conviction.  

While doing so, following discussion ensued:

“12. 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  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 4 was  on his head, which was of a serious nature.

13. Dr Rakesh Sharma, PW 5, had stated that out  of the injuries caused to Abdul Rashid, Injury 4 was  an injury on the head and that injury was ‘grievous  and  fatal  for  life’.  PW  8,  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  neurosurgeon  and  fully  supported  the  opinion  expressed by PW 5 Dr Rakesh  Sharma  that  Injury 4 was ‘grievous and fatal for life’.

14.  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  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 7 of 13

Page 8

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 v.  State  of  Punjab,  (2012)  10  SCC  303  and  has  committed  a mistake  in  taking  the  view that,  the  injuries were caused on the body of Abdul Rashid  in a fight occurred on the spur in the heat of the  moment.  It  has  been  categorically  held  by  this  Court in Gian Singh that the Court, while exercising  the power under Section 482 CrPC, must have ‘due  regard to the nature and gravity of the crime’ and  ‘the  societal  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’.

15.  We  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  crime   alleged to  have been committed  by  the  accused   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,  is  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.  The  High  Court was not right in thinking that it was only an  injury to the person and since the accused persons  (sic  victims)  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 anyone 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 coexistence and welfare of  the society at large.”

(emphasis supplied)

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 8 of 13

Page 9

12) We  would  like  to  mention  at  this  stage  that  in  some  cases  

offences under Section 307 IPC are allowed to be compounded,  

whereas  in  some  other  cases  it  is  held  to  be  contrary.   This  

dichotomy was taken note of by referring to those judgments, in  

the case of  Narinder Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Punjab & Anr.,   

(2014) 6 SCC 466, and by reconciling those judgments, situations  

and circumstances were discerned where compounding is to be  

allowed or refused. To put it simply, it was pointed out as to under  

what  circumstances  the  Courts  had  quashed  the  proceedings  

acting upon the settlement arrived at between the parties on the  

one hand and what were the reasons which had persuaded the  

Court  not  to  exercise  such  a  discretion.   After  thorough  and  

detailed discussion on various facets and after revisiting the entire  

law on the subject, following principles have culled out in the said  

decision:

“29.  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:

29.1.  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  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 9 of 13

Page 10

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.

29.2.  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.

29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the 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.

29.4.  On  the  other  hand,  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.

29.5. 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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall  in  the  category  of  heinous  and  serious  offences  and  therefore  are  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 charge is framed under this  provision. It would be open to the High Court to  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 10 of 13

Page 11

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  latter  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.

29.7. 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  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 to  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  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 11 of 13

Page 12

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.”

13) It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above, that  

offence  under  Section  307  is  not  treated  as  a  private  dispute  

between the parties inter se but is held to be a crime against the  

society. Further, guidelines are laid down for the Courts to deal  

with such matters when application for quashing of proceedings is  

filed,  after  the  parties  have  settled  the  issues  between  

themselves.

14) When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case to the  

facts of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the  

complainant were very serious in nature. The accused was armed  

with sword and had inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side  

of the head as well as on the left arm of the complainant. The  

complainant  was  attacked  five  times  with  the  sword  by  the  

accused person out of which two blows were struck on his head.  

But for the timely arrival of brother of the complainant and another  

lady  named  Preeti,  who  rescued  the  complainant,  the  attacks  

could have continued. In a case like this, the High Court should  

not have accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482  

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 12 of 13

Page 13

of the Code.  

15) As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and  

the  order  of  the  High  Court  is  set  aside.  The  concerned  

Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the case.  

.............................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

New Delhi; September 10, 2014.

Criminal Appeal No.                of 2014 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9854 of 2013 Page 13 of 13