Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu @ Ranu Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2016
1
MCRC.11891/2016
Monu @ Ranu Kushwah & ors. Vs. State of M.P. & anr.
30.11.2016
Shri J.S.Kushwaha, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
no.1/State.
This is an application under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR in Crime No.10/2016 registered under Sections 451,323,294,506,354/34 of I.PC and under Sections 3(1)(r),3(1)
(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute and have compromised.
2. The counsel for the applicants submit that a FIR was lodged on 06/09/2016 at 17:15 by the respondent no.2 alleging that she has taken half of the agricultural field of Ram Singh Kushwaha on "batai" and has cultivated groundnuts and the remaining half of the field has been taken by the applicant no.3 on "batai". About 3 to 4 days prior to the date of incident, the cow of the applicant no.3 had entered in the field of the complainant and the complainant had objected to applicant no.3. On this issue, yesterday at about 5 in the evening, the applicants went to the house of the complainant and abused her and said that "adiwasin" how could you oust the cow of the applicant no.3 from the field. When she requested them not to abuse, all the three started assaulting her by fist and blows and with evil intentions they caught hold her hand and started pulling her towards them. In the meanwhile, her husband Balwant also came there to save her who was also beaten by the applicants. Thereafter, they were saved by her uncle Thakur Das Adiwasi. While going back, the applicants extended threat to their life in case they lodge any FIR. On these allegations, the police registered offence under Sections 451,323,294,506,354/34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled 2 MCRC.11891/2016 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that since the parties have resolved their dispute and have compromised, therefore, the FIR be quashed on that ground only. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the applicants has relied upon the order dated 15/06/2016 passed in the case of Subodh Vs. State of M.P & ors. (MCRC.3837/2016), order dated 14/09/2016 passed in the case of Arvind Singh Sikarwar & ors. Vs. State of M.P & ors.(MCRC.7217/2016), order dated 14/09/2016 passed in the case of Shishupal Yadav & ors. Vs. State of M.P & ors. (MCRC.9405/2016), order dated 26/09/2016 passed in the case of Gaurav Nagar Vs. State of M.P & ors. (MCRC.1805/2016), order dated 28/11/2016 passed in the case of Himanshu Gupta Vs. State of M.P & ors. (MCRC.10283/2016) and order dated 28/11/2016 passed in the case of Suryabhan Singh Vs. State of M.P & ors. (MCRC.10832/2016).
4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent no.1/State submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of allegations, the proceedings may not be quashed on the ground of compromise.
5. Considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held as under:-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:3 MCRC.11891/2016
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him 4 MCRC.11891/2016 by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not 5 MCRC.11891/2016 been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held as under:-
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the facts that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because 6 MCRC.11891/2016 he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.
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 7 MCRC.11891/2016 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 F.I.R 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 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."
8. Therefore, it is a cardinal principle of law that while deciding the application for compromise in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC, the nature and the gravity of the offences are required to be considered. Merely because the individual has compromised the matter that by itself would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise, if the offence is against the society at large. It is further held in the case of Narendra Singh (supra) that the offences under the special statute should not be quashed on the basis of compromise.
9. The moot question for consideration is that whether a proceeding in which offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered, can be quashed on the ground of compromise.
10. We may profitably refer to Articles 15 and 17 of the 8 MCRC.11891/2016 Constitution of India. Article 17 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-
"17. Abolition of Untouchability.- "Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law."
11. Under exercise of power under Article 17 and Article 35(a) (II), the Untouchability (offences) Act, 1955 was passed which was later on renamed as "Protection of Civil rights Act". The abolition of untouchability is complete. However, it was felt that inspite of the abolition of untouchability, it is being practised. When it was realized that the commission of atrocities on the members of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe has not stopped and is still continuing, then the Special Act known as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 was enacted with stringent provisions to check these offences.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and Others reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 469 has held as under:-
"16. Poverty and penury made the Dalits as dependants and became vulnerable to oppression. The slightest attempt to assert equality or its perceived exercise receives the ire of the dominent sections of the society and the Dalits would become the object of atrocities and oppression. The lack of resources made the Dalits vulnerable to economic and social boycott. Their abject poverty and dependence on the upper classes in Rural Indian for livelihood stands as a constant constraint to their exercising their rights - social, legal or constitutional, though guaranteed. Thus they have neither money capacity, influence nor means to vindicate their rights except occasional collective action 9 MCRC.11891/2016 which would be deceased or flittered away by pressures through diverse forms.
Consequently most of the Dalits are continuing to languish under the yoke of the practice of untouchability. The State has the duty to protect them and render social justice to them.
21. Thus it could be concluded that the untouchability has been grown as an integral facet of socio-religious practices being observed for over centuries; keeping the Dalits away from the main-stream of the Society on diverse grounds, be it of religious, customary, unfounded beliefs of pollution etc. It is an attitude and way of behaviour of the general public of the Indian social order towards Dalits. Though it has grown as an integral part of caste system, it became an institution by itself and it enforces disabilities, restrictions, conditions and prohibitions on Dalits for access to and the use of places of public resort, public means, roads, temples, water sources, tanks, bathing ghats, etc., entry into educational institutions or pursuits of avocation or profession which are open to all and by reason of birth they suffer from social stigma. Untouchability and birth as a scheduled caste are thus intertwined root causes. Untouchability, therefore, is founded upon prejudicial hatred towards Dalits as in independent institution. It is an attitude to regard Dalits as pollutants, inferiors and out- castes. It is not founded on mense rea. The practice of untouchability in any form is, therefore, a crime against the Constitution. The Act also protects civil rights of Dalits. The abolition of untouchability is the arch of the Constitution to make its preamble meaningful and to integrate the Dalits in the national mainstream.
22. In furtherance thereof Article 15(2) removed disabilities that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to - (a) access to shops, public 10 MCRC.11891/2016 restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. Article 23(1) prohibits begar and other similar forms of forced labour, (bonded labour). Article 23 also prohibits traffic in woman (Jogins and Devadasi system thrive on cruel monster of custom). Article 29(2) prohibits denial of admission into an educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of...caste or any of them. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion and its exercise thereof is made available to Dalits. Sub-clause (2) thereof envisages that nothing in that article shall affect the operation of the existing law or prevent the State from making any law to provide for social welfare and reform or to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
23. Thus disabilities to which Dalits are subjected to, have been outlawed and denial thereof offends the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution etc. These provisions also furnish evidence of sociology that Dalits have been denied access to all the public means open to the general public and of public amenities. The practice of untouchability is the root cause for social segregation, denial of opportunities for educational, economic and cultural pursuits; Dalits are subjected to severe discrimination, disabilities, liabilities, prohibitions, restrictions or conditions etc. The scheme in Part III, namely, fundamental rights is to remove disabilities to which the Dalits are subjected to and to provide positive rights in their favour and Part IV directive principles fasten duties on the State to render socio-economic and political justice and to protect them from all forms of exploitation and injustice by operation of Article 38 and Article 46 of the Constitution. In other words the Constitution charges the state to improve the quality of 11 MCRC.11891/2016 their life, social, economic and cultural pursuits as part of meaningful right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. The above provisions seek to serve three- fold purposes; (i) outlawed the disabilities to which Dalits are subjected to; (ii) they are made an offence under the Act; and (iii) provided rights enforceable as civil rights. Untouchability is the root cause and consequently any religious, social, customary or moral grounds to enforce untouchability no longer subsists nor is valid after January 26, 1950. Enforcement of any disability is a crime against human rights and the Constitution entails the wrong doer with punishment. All customs, usages, practices, directly or indirectly recognising or encouraging the practice of untouchability in any form is void, being opposed to public policy. Even a contract, covenant or any private transaction tending to recognise, encourage or effectuate untouchability in any form is, therefore, void ab initio.
33. When the mandate of Article 17 was being breached with impunity, and commission of atrocities on Dalits and Tribes continued unabated, to stamp out the evil, the Parliament stepped in and made Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with stringent provisions to eradicate those offences with speedy trial, relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offence and related matters. The details thereof are not germane for discussion.
34. Judiciary acts as a bastion of the freedom and of the rights of the people. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Architect of Modern India as early as in 1944 stated that the spirit of the age is in favour of equality though the practice denies it almost everywhere, yet the spirit of the age triumphs. The judge must be atone with the spirit of his/her times. Power of judicial review, a constituent power has, therefore, been conferred upon the judiciary 12 MCRC.11891/2016 which constitutes one of the most important and potent weapons to protect the citizens against violation of social, legal or constitutional rights. The judges are participants in the living stream of national life, steering the law between the dangers of rigidity on the one hand and formlessness on the other hand in the seemless web of life. The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of the men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges idly bye. Law should subserve social purpose. Judge must be a jurist endowed with the legislator's wisdom, historian's search for truth, prophet's vision, capacity to respond to the needs of the present, resilience to to himself/herself from every personal influence or predilictions. Therefore, the Judges would adopt purposive interpretation of the dynamic concepts of the Constitution and the Act with its interpretative armoury to articulate the felt necessities of the time. The Judge must also bear in mind that social legislation is not a document for fastidious dialects but means of ordering in the life of the people. To construe law one must enter into its spirit, its setting and history. Law should be capable of expanding freedoms of the people and the legal order can, weighed with utmost equal care, be made to provide the underpinning of the highly inequitable social order. The power of judicial review must, therefore, be exercised with insight into social values to supplement the changing social needs. The existing social inequalities or imbalances are to be removed and social order readjusted through rule of law, lest the force of violent cult gain ugly triumph. Judges are summoned to the duty of shaping the progress of the law to consolidate society and grant access to the Dalits and Tribes to public means or places dedicated to public use or places of amenities open to public etc. The law which is the resultant product is not found but made. Public policy of law, as determined by new conditions, would enable the courts to recast the changing conceptions of social values of 13 MCRC.11891/2016 yester years yielding place to the changed conditions and environment to the common good. The courts are to search for light from among the social elements of every kind that are the living forces behind the factors they deal with. By judicial review, the glorious contents and the trite realisation in the constitutional words of width must be made vocal and audible giving them continuity of life, expression and force when they might otherwise be forgotten or ignored in the heat of moment or under sway of passions of emotions remain aroused, that the rational faculties get befogged and the people are addicted to take immediate for eternal, the transitory for the permanent and the ephemeral for the timeless. It is in such surging situation the presence and consciousness and the restraining external force by judicial review ensures stability and progress of the Society. Judiciary does not forsake the ideals enshrined in he constitution, but make them meaningful and make the people realise and enjoy the rights.
35. The Judges, therefore, should respond to the human situations to meet the felt necessities of the time and social needs, make meaningful the right to life and give effect to the Constitution and the will of the Legislature. This court as the vehicle of transforming the nations life should respond to the nation's needs and to interpret the law with pragmatism to further public welfare to make the constitutional animations a reality. Common sense has always served in the court's ceaseless striving as a voice of reason to maintain the blend of change and continuity of order which is sine quo non for stability in the process of change in a parliamentary democracy. In interpreting the Act, the judge should be cognizant to and always keep at the back of his/her mind the constitutional goals and the purpose of the Act and interpret the provisions of the Act in the light thus shed to annihilate untouchability; to accord to the Dalits and the 14 MCRC.11891/2016 Tribes right to equality, social integration a fruition and make fraternity a reality.
36. The thrust of Article 17 and the Act is to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence and traditional beliefs which lost all legal or moral base. It seeks to establish new ideal for society - equality to the Dalits, on a par with general public, absence of disabilities, restrictions or prohibitions on grounds of caste or religion, availability of opportunities and a sense of being a participant in the main stream of national life.
37. While the court, therefore, is to adopt the psychological approach, reasonable doubt does not mean the mind of a doubting Thomas, nor vacillation, nor pusillanimity, nor deep-seated prejudices or predilections covertly found in other walks of life. The application of the test of a reasonable man acting in similar circumstances and reasonable doubt of a reasonable man is the rule."
13. Thus, it is clear that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is special statute enacted with an intention to eradicate untouchability and to make stringent provisions in case any offence is committed against the member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
14. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted because in spite of various measures adopted to improve the socio-economic condition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they had remained vulnerable. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassments only because of the fact that they belong to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. When they assert their rights and resist untouchability, the vested interest tried to cow them down and terrorize them. Sometimes the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who are in the occupation of the agricultural lands, become victims of 15 MCRC.11891/2016 attacks by a vested interest, therefore, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted as it was considered necessary that not only the word 'atrocities' should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities. Therefore, any act which is punishable under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has to be dealt with seriously and cannot be treated at par with offences punishable under the Panel Code. Furthermore, in order to achieve the object of protecting the dignity and rights of the members of a Scheduled Castes and a Scheduled Tribes, certain amendments have been introduced by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 making more stringent provisions. Thus, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a special statute which has been enacted with the specific purpose of protecting the dignity, integrity as well as the rights of the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
15. In the present case, offences under Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) are also registered against the applicants.
16. Section 3(1)(r) reads as under:-
"(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."
17. Section 3(1)(s) reads as under:-
"(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view."
18. Section 3(1)(w) reads as under:-
"(w) (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a 16 MCRC.11891/2016 Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent;
(ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-
clause (i), the expression "consent" means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures, or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act:
Provided that a woman belongings to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who does not offer physical resistance to any act of a sexual nature is not by reason only of that fact, is to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
Provided further that a woman's sexual history, including with the offender shall not imply consent or mitigate the offence."
19. The fact that the applicants had called the complainant as "adiwasin" clearly show that they had committed this offence intentionally to humiliate and insult a member of a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a place within a public view. The allegations made in the FIR also clearly shows that the applicants had intentionally touched the complainant with evil intentions who belongs to a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the offences committed by the applicants were individual in nature and not against the society. So far as the order on which the counsel for the applicants has placed reliance are concerned suffice it to say that those orders have been passed in the facts and circumstances of that case.
20. In the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court 17 MCRC.11891/2016 in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Narendra Singh (supra) while deciding the application for quashing of FIR on the ground of compromise, the Court is under obligation to consider the nature and gravity of the offence. It was submitted by the counsel for the applicants that so far as the observation given by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh (Supra) and Narendra Singh (supra) in paragraph 29.3 is concerned the same cannot be applied to the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In Narendra Singh (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 29.3 has observed as under:-
"(29.3). Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender."
21. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that since the Supreme Court has referred to Prevention of Corruption Act and for offences committed by public servants working in that capacity, therefore, word the "special statutes"
should be interpreted in the light of these two acts only. So far as the reference to Prevention of Corruption Act and offences of public servant is concerned, the same is merely illustrative in nature and is not exhaustive. As it has already been observed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been enacted to check the tendency of 18 MCRC.11891/2016 untouchability in the society which is also prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution of India, it is held that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a Special Statute and, therefore, the power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise cannot be exercised. Furthermore, the orders on which the counsel for the applicants has placed reliance, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has nowhere decided that whether proceedings for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be quashed on the basis of compromise or not? Further the applicants have filed an application under Section 320(2) of CrPC for compromise. The offences as specified in Section 320(2) of CrPC, can be compounded with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offences is pending. Admittedly in the present case, even investigation is not complete and no charge- sheet has been filed. No case is pending before this Court, therefore, the application under Section 320(2) of CrPC is otherwise not maintainable.
22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the application for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.10/2016 registered by Police Station AJAK, District - Datia on the ground that the parties have compromised, cannot be allowed. Hence, the application is dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
AKS Judge