- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hanumant Singh v. State Of M.P & Another
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Crime No. 65/14 under Section 394 of the IPC read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act at Police Station Amayan, District Bhind, and the subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The prosecution case states that the complainant Ratiram was driving his truck loaded with sand when four unknown persons, concealing their faces and armed with a gun, stones, and a danda, stopped the vehicle. One assailant fired a shot injuring Ratiram's leg. The assailants then robbed Rs. 12,800/- from Ratiram and fled.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and filed a verified application for compromise. The Principal Registrar of the Court verified the compromise and reported that it was voluntary and without coercion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a non-compoundable offence based on a compromise between the parties.
- Whether continuance of the prosecution in the present case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shiji alias Pappu, (2011) 10 SCC 705 |
The Apex Court clarified that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash prosecutions even for non-compoundable offences when a trial would be futile and amount to abuse of process of law. It distinguished between compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing sparing and cautious exercise of such power. |
The Court relied on this precedent to hold that since the dispute was settled, no conviction was likely, and continuing the trial would be futile and an abuse of process, thus justifying quashing the FIR and proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted the verification by the Principal Registrar confirming the voluntary and uncoerced compromise between the parties. Applying the principles laid down in Shiji alias Pappu, the Court recognized that although the offence was non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. permitted quashing the proceedings when no conviction was likely and trial continuation would be futile.
The Court emphasized that exercising such power requires utmost care and is justified only to prevent abuse of the legal process. Given the settlement, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and amount to abuse of process of law.
Holding and Implications
The petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No. 65/14 under Section 394 of IPC read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and the subsequent criminal proceedings are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.
This decision directly results in the termination of the criminal case against the petitioner based on the compromise. The Court did not set any new precedent beyond applying established principles from the Apex Court ruling in Shiji alias Pappu.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 65/14 under Section 394 of IPC read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act at police Station, Amayan, Distt. Bhind, and its subsequent criminal proceedings.
As per prosecution case, complainant Ratiram was going to load sand in his truck bearing registration number MP06 HC 2291 to Ruhiraghat. He was driving the truck and Ramphool was sitting on the conductor seat and Ramniwas and Ramvaran were sitting on the back seats. As soon as the complainant reached Mau Amayana Road, four unknown persons, who were hiding their face, came, one of them was armed with gun and others were carrying stone and Danda. The person who was carrying gun fired a shot which piercing the front side of body of truck hit on the leg of the complainant. The complainant stopped the truck, then the accused persons came near and took out cash of Rs. 12,800/- from the pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, they ran away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application for compromise which has been verified by the Principal Registrar under the direction of this Court.
Report of Principal Registrar perused.
It is reported by the Principal Registrar of this Court that he is satisfied that complainant/respondent No. 2 Ratiram has compromised voluntarily without any fear or force.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiji alias Pappu (2011) 10 SCC 705, has observed in para 17 and 18 as under:
“17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in case where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in case where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C
18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of and appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”
Considering that parties have settled their dispute, there is no likelihood of recording a conviction against the petitioner, his trial would be a futile exercise and continuance of it would tantamount to abuse of process of law and also the decision of the Apex Court in Shiji alias Pappu (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No. 65/14 under Section 394 of IPC read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act at police Station, Amayan, Distt. Bhind, and its subsequent criminal proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.
Alert