DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17th March 2021.
JUDGE: Subramonium Prasad.
PARTIES
- Mahender Singh (Appellant)
- The State (Respondent)
SUMMARY: The present case deals with the issue of whether or not the court can exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences committed under Sec. 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
OVERVIEW
- In this case, the complainant and his friend, who were on their way back from their coaching centre, were stopped by the appellants. The appellants abused the complainant and started fighting with him.
- It is stated that the appellant No. 1 picked up a danda (stick) and hit the complainant on his head and the complainant fell on the ground. When people gathered there the accused threatened the complainant of dire consequences and left.
- A case under the provisions of Sec. 308 of the IPC was filed against the appellants.
- Upon medical examination of the complainant, it was found that he had sustained minor head injury with left periorbital swelling.
- The matter is now before the High Court.
ISSUES
The following issue was analyzed by the High Court:
- Whether the court can exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss offences committed under Sec. 308 of the IPC.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code: Attempt to murder.
- Sec. 308 of the Indian Penal Code: Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
- Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
- The counsel for the appellants submitted before the court that that the parties are related to each other and for peace in the family the FIR be quashed.
- The appellants had filed the petition on the ground that after the intervention of the parents and well-wishers the parties have stated to settle their disputes.
- The court, while hearing the arguments of both the appellant and the respondent, sought to take reference to cases that addressed the issue of exercising the powers under Sec. 482 CrPC for offences committed under Sec. 308 of the IPC.
- The court, while pronouncing its judgment, cited the decision given in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan1, which held that the powers conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised keeping in mind the injuries sustained, nature of weapons used, etc.
- Therefore, referring to the aforementioned decision, the court quashed the criminal proceedings brought against the appellants under the provisions of Sec. 308 of IPC. The court held that since only minor injuries were sustained by the respondent, the court was inclined to quash the FIR exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
- The court, while pronouncing its decision, ordered the appellants to do community service at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for a period of one month. A fine of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on each appellant and directed the amount to be paid to the Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.
- The court ordered that after completion of one month, a certificate from Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, be also filed to show compliance of the order.
- The court, while explaining the reasons for such a judgment, contended that this was a lesson for the appellants to help them understand that anger does not give a license to take law in their hands.
CONCLUSION
The issue that the judgment discusses is whether the court can exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss offences committed under Sec. 308 of the IPC. The court, in this case, held that it has jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Sec. 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings arising out of offences punishable under Sec. 308 of the IPC.
There have been several conflicting judgments given by the Supreme Court with regards to whether an offence under Section 308 IPC could be quashed by the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat2 held that an offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed by the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh3, also held that proceedings initiated for offences under Sec. 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed as it is a non-compoundable offence.
However, in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,4 the court held that the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
The decision given in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan5 resolved the conflict by stating that FIRs filed under the provisions of the IPC can be quashed by the High Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 CrPC keeping in mind the injuries sustained, nature of weapons used, etc.
The court, in the instant case, sought to take up the precedent set by the aforementioned case. As the injuries sustained by the respondent were minor, the proceedings initiated against the appellants were quashed. However, while deciding to direct the appellants to undertake community service for a period of one month, the court, in this case, had decided to take up a more reformative and a humanitarian approach. In a similar case, while quashing an FIR registered for an attempt to murder, the court had asked a 21-year-old accused to undertake a one-month community service at Gurdwara Bangla Sahib6.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
