Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Karan vs State(Govt.Of Nct)Of Delhi on 18 July, 2014
XH IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1479 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9069 of 2013)
RAM KARAN & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT.OF NCT)OF DELHI RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment
passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby
the
conviction of the appellants under Sections 325 and
452 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under Sections
323 read with Section 34 IPC has been maintained. As
regards the sentence, the appellants have be
en
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a
period of one year and to pay fine as was imposed by
the Additional Sessions Judge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2014.07.26
12:02:48 IST
Reason:
3. By Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.24899 of
1
2013 taken out by the appellants, it is prayed that
offence for which the appellants have been convicted
may be compounded and the sentence imposed upon the
appellants be set aside.
4. The incident is of 5.10.1990 and for the last 23
years, the appellants and the injured persons are
reported to be living peacefully. They have now
cordial relationship. The fine has already been
deposited by the appellants.
5. Offence under Section 323 read with Section 324
are compoundable under Section 320(1) read with
Section 321(3) of Cr.P.C. by the person to whom the
hurt is caused. They have filed Annexure-P1, an
affidavit before this Court, praying for compounding
all the offences. The offence under Section 325 is
compoundable under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. by the
person to whom hurt is caused, with the permission of
the Court. As far as offence under Section 452 is
concerned, it is a non-compoundable offence. In
’Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another’, (2012)
10 SCC 303, a three-Judge Bench of this Court to
2
which one of us (R.M.Lodha) is a member, it has been
held :
"51. ...Sub-section (9) of Section 320
mandates that no offence shall be compounded
except as provided by this Section.
Obviously, in view thereof the composition of
an offence has to be in accord with Section
320 and in no other manner. ..."
6. However, with regard to the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court, it has been held in
Gian Singh case (supra) at Paragraph-61 that :
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power
of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal
court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation
but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i)
to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim’s
family and the offender have settled the
3
dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash
criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the
criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
4
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
referred to above, we are of the view that it will
not be in the interest of justice to relegate the
parties to the High Court, and for doing complete
justice in this case, everything is to be given a
quietus here. Therefore, the offence under Section
323 read with 34 IPC and Section 325 are compounded
and proceedings under Section 452 IPC are quashed.
8. Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed as
above. This disposes of criminal miscellaneous
petition as well.
........................CJI.
(R.M. LODHA)
..........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI; ..........................J.
JULY 18, 2014 (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
5
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.1 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9069/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/08/2013 in
CRLA No. 376/2003 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At N. Delhi)
RAM KARAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE(GOVT.OF NCT)OF DELHI Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for bail, compounding the offence and office report)
Date : 18/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. K. Mohan ,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv.
For Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Renu Diwan) Sr.P.A. Court Master Signed order is placed on the file. 6