Page 1

1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  446    OF 2016

(Arising out of SLP [Crl.) No. 5622/2014)

State of M.P. & Anr.     … Appellants

            Vs.

Rajveer Singh & Ors.      … Respondents

O R D E R

ARUN MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

The appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the order dated

27.2.2013, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.8802 of

2011 quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent Rajveer Singh

registered  on the  basis  of  complaint  lodged by the  respondent  no.2,  Hakim

Singh Rawat vide Crime No.332 of 2011 for committing offence  under Section

307/34 IPC at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri.

Hakim  Singh  Rawat,  respondent  no.2,  the  complainant  lodged  a

complaint  at  Police  Station,  Karera  on  3.4.2006  with  respect  to  offence

committed on 2.4.2006 in which it was alleged that while he was coming back

from Ganna Kesar near Vabdeshu along with his companions, the respondent

Page 2

2

Rajveer Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Sunaki chowki intercepted his way,

abused him and then police fired a gun shot on his leg  due to which he suffered

injury on the leg and fell down.  The said ASI along with Constable started

hitting the complainant by butt of firearm and also with kicks and punches.  The

complainant approached the TI of Police Station, Karera but the complaint was

not recorded.  Thereafter, he was taken to the District hospital,  Shivpuri for

proper care and treatment since the injury was grave and fatal as the same could

not be cured at Karera.  The victim faxed the complaint to the home department,

Government of Madhya Pradesh and also approached the other authorities at

Bhopal, but, FIR was not registered.  Hence, filed a writ petition in the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh which was decided vide order dated 1.8.2008.  The

Inspector General of Police was directed to hand over the inquiry of the case to

an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police.  Finally,

the case was registered on 2.7.2011.

The respondent, Rajveer Singh filed petition in year 2011 under Section

482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings.  During the pendency of the

proceedings in 2013, he filed a compromise petition entered into between him

and the complainant. The respondent no.1 had filed a petition before the High

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR  and the proceedings in

the said criminal case under Section 307/34.  It was alleged by Rajveer Singh

that offence no.120/06 dated 3.4.2006  was registered under Section 307/34 IPC

against the other accused who were dacoits Umrao Singh  and Hemraj Singh for

Page 3

3

launching  attack  on  the  petitioner  and  one  Raghvendra  Shukla  was  found

helping the dacoits.  The complainant, Hakim Singh Rawat was injured during

the fire  by the dacoits.   FIR dated 3.4.2006 had been relied upon.  Another

offence no.20/06 dated 2.4.2006 was also registered under Section 34 against

Umrao  Singh  and  Hemraj  Singh  for  commission  of  offence  under  Section

307/34 IPC for  attack  on police  party.  The  complainant  Hakim Singh was

injured  during  the  firing  by  the  dacoits.   During  trial  against  the  dacoits,

respondent  No.1 Rajveer Singh has been examined as a witness in the year

2008.   Beside  him,  in  the said  trial,  PW.2 Anup Singh has  also  stated  that

Hakim, Parmal and Jitendra were there who fled towards the river.  Hemraj and

other 2-3 dacoits were in the hideout and the dacoits started firing at the police

party which hit the right leg of Hakim.  Statement of PW.3, Vishal was also

recorded in March 2008.  He has also stated that dacoit Hemraj fired from his

gun which hit the leg of Hakim.  Similar is the statement of PW.4 and PW.5.  In

view  of  the  aforesaid  case  against  dacoits  and  the  evidence,  there  was  no

justification to register the instant case against the respondent, Rajveer Singh.

Prayer was made in the petition filed by Rajveer Singh to direct reopening of

Session Trial No.83/07 in the court of the Special Judge, MPDPK Act, Shivpuri

which was closed on the ground of absconding of the accused persons.  It was

further prayed that respondent nos. 5 to 7 i.e. Hakim Singh Rawat and others be

made  accused  persons  in  the  said  case  as  they  harboured  dacoits.   Further

prayer was made to quash the FIR in question lodged by Hakim Singh Rawat.

Page 4

4

The  High  Court  by  way  of  impugned  order  has  quashed  the  FIR.

Aggrieved thereby, the State has come up in the appeal before us.  We have

heard the learned counsel for the parties.  The High Court has quashed the FIR

which was registered after a direction issued by the High Court itself on the

complaint lodged by Hakim Singh Rawat.

It is apparent from the order that the High Court  has not considered the

facts and circumstances of the case and that there is serious counter allegation

made against the complainant of the instant case by accused respondent Rajveer

Singh.  It was alleged in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that he was

harbouring  the dacoits and gun-shots were fired by dacoits and injury suffered

by Hakim was caused by gun shot fired by dacoits whereas the complainant has

alleged that it was the police who fired shot at him due to which injury was

caused.  It is apparent that the complainant of the present case was not made an

accused in the offence registered by the police in the year 2007 against certain

dacoits, as they absconded, the trial was closed. The prayer was made before the

High Court by Rajveer Singh to reopen the trial and to try respondents 5 to 7 in

the Sessions trial on the basis of offence registered in the year 2007.

Considering allegations and counter-allegations, it was not such a case

which could have been compromised by the complainant and the accused and

FIR could not have been quashed in such a serious case as that would be against

public policy and administration of criminal justice system.  The FIR discloses

commission of cognizable offence under Section 307/34 IPC.  Considering the

Page 5

5

nature  of  allegation,  it  is  necessary  to  investigate  further  in  the  facts  and

circumstances of the instant case. The High Court has erred in quashing the FIR

relying on the decision of this Court in  Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika &

Anr,  2012 Cr.L.R. (SC 69.    This Court in  State of Rajasthan vs.  Shambhu

Kewat & Anr, 2013(14) SCALE 235 has held that the crime against a society

cannot be wiped of due to the compromise.  This Court has laid down thus:  

“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, 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. High Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury to the person and since the accused persons 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 any one 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 co-existence and welfare of the society at large.”

The facts are to be gone into during the investigation.  The High Court

has erred in quashing the FIR in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence,

Page 6

6

we set aside the order passed by the High Court, appeal is allowed and let an

investigation  be  made  in  accordance  with  law  and  taken  to  its  logical

conclusion at the earliest.     

           ….....…………………….J.              (V. Gopala Gowda)

New Delhi;              …………………………..J. April 25, 2016.              (Arun Mishra)