Chattisgarh High Court
Gopiram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:2078
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1 of 2023
1. Gopiram Sahu S/o Shri Luduram Sahu, Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Kodapuri, P.S. Kunda Tahsil Pandariya, District -
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
2. Pappu Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 24 Years
R/o Village Neurgaon, Police Station Kunda Tahsil Pandariya District -
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
---- PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
2. Vishal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Heeraram Dewangan Aged About 34
Years R/o Village Gopibandpara, Ward No. 3, Pandariya, Police Station
Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
--------RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Mr. Aavdhesh Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate For the Respondent No.2. : Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate ______________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 19/01/2024
1. The petitioners have filed the present CrMP under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings (Sessions Case No. 03/2022) pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Kabirdham for commission of offence under Sections 384/34 ,394/34, 397/34 of the IPC and also challenged the order dated 26.11.2022 by Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2078 Page 2 of 4 which learned trial Court has partly allowed the application for compounding the offence under Section 320(2) CrPC. So far as, it relates to offence 342/34 IPC and for remaining offence under Section 384/34,394/34,397/34 IPC the same has been rejected and the trial Court has directed to continue the trial.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant and the accused have settled their dispute and the petitioner has returned back money with interest to the complainant. He would further submit that the applicant has remained in jail for a period of six months and would pray for quashment of entire criminal proceedings.
3. Counsel for the complainant would submit that that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and would pray for compound the offence.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that this offence is against the society, therefore, it cannot be compounded and would pray for dismissal of the present CrMP.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The record of the case would show that the applicant has been charged for committing the offence which has not been incorporated in the list of compoundable offence as per Section 320 of the IPC. But this Court while exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC can quash the criminal proceedings subjected to parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan reported 2019 (5) SCC 687 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2078 Page 3 of 4 15.1) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
15.3) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corrutpon 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;
15.4) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:2078 Page 4 of 4 was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.
16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused.
17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8000 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused, and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. Criminal Appeal No.350 of 2019
7. Since the petitioner has been charged for commission of offence under Sections 384 of the IPC for extortion, 394 of the IPC for committing robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, 397 of the IPC for robbery, or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, as such these offence are serious in nature which cannot be compoundable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the present CrMP is dismissed.
8. It is made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, the trial Court is free to decide the case in accordance with the evidence and the material place on record. As this court has only considered the Section for which petitioners have been charged.
9. With this observation, the CrMP is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh