- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another v. Rajveer Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
On 2-4-2006, Hakim Singh Rawat alleged that Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh intercepted and abused him near Vabdeshu, fired a gunshot that struck his leg, and then beat him with the butt of a firearm along with another constable. Although Rawat sought to lodge a complaint immediately, no First Information Report (FIR) was registered. He obtained medical treatment, sent a fax complaint to the Home Department, and ultimately filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By order dated 1-8-2008, the High Court directed an inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, leading to registration of Crime No. 332/2011 on 2-7-2011 under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Rajveer Singh then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of the FIR. He asserted that the injury to Rawat had been caused by dacoits Umrao Singh and Hemraj Singh, against whom two earlier FIRs (Nos. 120/06 and 20/06) for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC were already pending. During the pendency of the Section 482 petition, Rajveer Singh produced a compromise deed executed with the complainant. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, by order dated 27-2-2013 in MCRC No. 8802 of 2011, quashed the FIR. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing an FIR under Sections 307/34 IPC on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant under its inherent powers in Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether allegations and counter-allegations regarding the source of the gun-shot injury required further investigation instead of termination of proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh)
- The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the offence under Section 307 IPC, which is non-compoundable and involves public interest.
- Counter-allegations existed indicating that the complainant may have harboured dacoits who actually fired the shot; these matters required investigation, not quashing.
Respondent (Rajveer Singh)
- The complainant’s injury was caused by dacoits Umrao Singh and Hemraj Singh during an attack on a police party; Rajveer Singh himself was a witness in that earlier trial.
- A compromise had been reached with the complainant, and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings served no useful purpose.
- Requested reopening of Sessions Trial No. 83/2007 and inclusion of the complainant and others as accused for harbouring dacoits, while simultaneously seeking quashing of the present FIR.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 | Illustrates circumstances where criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. | The High Court relied on this decision to quash the FIR; the Supreme Court distinguished it as inapplicable to serious offences against society. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 | Holds that offences under Section 307 IPC are against society at large and cannot be wiped out by private compromise. | The Supreme Court invoked this ruling to conclude that the High Court erred in quashing an FIR involving Section 307 IPC. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the FIR disclosed a cognizable and serious offence under Sections 307/34 IPC. It emphasized that:
- Section 307 IPC is classified as a non-compoundable offence because it protects societal interests, not merely an individual victim.
- Compromising such an offence would undermine public policy and the criminal justice system, as articulated in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat.
- There exist competing narratives—one attributing the gun-shot injury to police firing and the other to dacoits—which necessitate thorough investigation.
- The High Court had earlier directed registration of the very FIR it later quashed; quashing it without examining the factual matrix or public interest considerations was erroneous.
Accordingly, the Court held that the proper course was to allow investigation to proceed to its logical conclusion rather than terminate the proceedings on the basis of a private settlement.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order quashing the FIR set aside.
The FIR (Crime No. 332/2011) stands revived, and investigation is to be conducted in accordance with law and completed expeditiously. The decision reinforces the principle that offences under Section 307 IPC, being crimes against society, cannot be nullified by compromise, thereby strengthening the public interest dimension of criminal prosecutions without setting new precedent beyond existing Supreme Court jurisprudence.
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 Rajveer Singh v. State of M.P. MCRC No. 8802 of 2011 quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent Rajveer Singh registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Respondent 2, Hakim Singh Rawat vide Crime No. 332 of 2011 for committing the offence under Sections 307/34 IPC at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri.
2. Hakim Singh Rawat, Respondent 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 Rajveer Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sunaki Chowki intercepted his way, abused him and then police fired a gunshot 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 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 the Additional Superintendent of Police. Finally, the case was registered on 2-7-2011.
3. The respondent, Rajveer Singh filed a petition in the year 2011 under Section 482 CrPC 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. Respondent 1 had filed a petition before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings in the said criminal case under Sections 307/34. It was alleged by Rajveer Singh that Offence No. 120/06 dated 3-4-2006 was registered under Sections 307/34 IPC against the other accused who were dacoits Umrao Singh and Hemraj Singh for 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 Sections 307/34 IPC for attack on police party. The complainant Hakim Singh was injured during the firing by the dacoits.
4. During trial against the dacoits, Respondent 1 Rajveer Singh has been examined as a witness in the year 2008. Besides 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.
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 Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2007 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 Respondents 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.
6. The High Court by way of the 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.
7. 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 the respondent-accused Rajveer Singh. It was alleged in the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC that he was harbouring the dacoits and gunshots were fired by dacoits and injury suffered by Hakim was caused by gunshot 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 the offence registered in the year 2007.
8. 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 Sections 307/34 IPC. Considering the 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 v. Radhika (2011) 10 SCC 705. This Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, (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:
“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 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.”
9. 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, we set aside the order passed by the High Court, the appeal is allowed and let an investigation be made in accordance with law and taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest.
Alert