STATE OF M.P.versusMANISH & ORS.

                                                ..:i :,...
                    [2015] 8 S.C.R. 723


                      STATE OF M.P.                            . A
                             v.
                     MANI SH & ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal No.860 of 2015)
                       JULY 06, 2015                            B

    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
             UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.340, 482 -
Whether based on out of Court settlement alleged to have C
been reached between the private parties, the offences of
the nature falling u/ss.307, 294 and 34 /PC which are not
covered by s.320 can be taken note of and such orders of
quashing of the proceedings can be passed in exercise of
                                                                0
powers u/s.482 - Held: Offence ulss.307, 294 and 34 /PC
along with ss. 25 and 27 of the fvms Act cannot be held to be
an offence as between the private parties simpliciter- Since
such offences have a serious impact on the society at large,
the private respondents will have to necessarily face trial and E
come out unscathed by demonstrating their innocence- Trial
Court directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law
- Compromise - Compounding of offence - Penal Code,
1860-ss. 307, 294 and 34.
                                                                F
    Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (8) SCR
753: (2012) 10 SCC 303; State ofM.P. v. Deepak and Others
(2014) 10 sec 285- relied on.

                   Case Law Reference
                                                                G
       2012 (8) SCR 753            relied on.         Para 5

       (2014) 10 sec 285           relied on.         Para 5

                            723                                 H
724         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 8 S.C.R.


A         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      No. 860 of 2015

          From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2013 in
      Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4013 of 2013 of the High
B     Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.

         C.D. Singh, Darpan Bhuyan, Vikas Bansal for the
      Appellant.

      Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Binay Kumar Das, K.P. Singh,
C Varinder Kumar Sharma forthe Respondents.

          The Order of the Court was delivered

                                 ORDER
D
          1. Leave granted.

          2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
      respondents.

E      3. The appellanUState of Madhya Pradesh seeks to
  challenge the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated
  25.6.2013 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.401312013, in
  and by which the High Court in exercise of its powers under
  Section 482 Cr.PC. by taking into accountthe stand of the de
F facto complainant, who was present before the Court, that she
  did not wish to prosecute the respondents herein as the
  disputes have been amicably settled between them, curiously
  proceeded to quash the FIR in Crime No.512/2012 registered
  at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offences under
G Sections 307, 294 and 34 IPC as well as the subsequent
  criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No.2602/2013 for
  the same offences pending before the Court. The High Court,
  however, made it clear that the proceedings pending against
  the private respondents herein in relation to the offences under
H Sections 25 and 27 ofArms Act were not quashed by the Court.
             STATE OF M.P. v. MANISH & ORS.                    725


     4. Therefore, the moot question that arises for A
consideration is whether based on out of Court.settlement
alleged to have been reached between the private parties,
the offences of this nature falling under Sections 307, 294 and
34 IPC which.are not covered by Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be
taken note of and such orders of quashing cifthe proceedings B
can be passed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

     5. The question is no longer res integra, inasmuch as the
Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 which C
has been subsequently followed in a number of other decisions
including the recent decision in State of M. P. v. Deepak and
Others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 285, clearly sets out as to
in what circumstances and in what type of cases such exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked D
de hors Section 320 Cr.P.C. for recognizing such· out of Court
settlement for the purpose of quashing of criminal proceedings.

     6. The Three-Judge Bench decision in Gian Singh (supra)
is an illuminating judgment on this issue. In paragraph 61 E
ultimately the position has been set out in clear terms as under:-

    "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
    can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
    quashing a crimi'nal proceeding or FIR or complaint in F
    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 statutorv limitation but it has to
    be exercised in accord with the guideline enqrafted in G
    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
    F.l.R may be exercised where! the offender and the victim
    have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and H
726     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 8 S.C.R.


A     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
      depravitv or offences like murder. rape. dacoitv. etc. cannot
B     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 a serious
      impact on societv. Similarly, any compromise between the
      victim and the offender in relation to the offences under
c     special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
      the offences committed by public servants while working
      in that capacity, etc; carinot provide for any basis for
      quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
      But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
D
      dominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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
E     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 the criminal
      proceedings if in its view. because of the compromise
      between the offender and the victim.  ' the possibility of
F
      conviction is reniote and bleak and continuation of the
      criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
      prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
      by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
G     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
H     despite settlement and compromise between the victim
                STATE OF M.P. v. MANISH & ORS.                  727


     and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of A
     justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an
     end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
     affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
     jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
                                                                    B
                                               (emphasis added)
     7. When we apply the principles set down therein, it can
be stated that when it comes to the question 'of compounding
an offence under Sections 307, 294 and 34 IPC along with C
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by"no stretch of
imagination, it can be held to be an offence as between the
private parties simpliciter. Inasmuch as such offeoces will have
a serious impact on the society at large, it runs beyond our
comprehension to state that after the commission of such 0
offence the parties involved have reached a settlement and,
therefore, such settlement can be given a seal of approval by
the Judicial Forum.                    ·

      8. In the circumstances, the High Court unfortunately having E
failed to appreciate the said legal position, the impugned order
cannot be sustained. We are, therefore, convinced that in a
situation where the private respondents herein are facing trial
for offences under Sections 307, 294 read with 34 IPC as well
as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the cases pending F
trial before the Court in Criminal Case No.2602 of 2013, as
the offences are definitely as against the society, the private
respondents will have to necessarily face trial and come _out
unscathed by demonstrating their innocence;•ffhe impugned
order is, therefore, set aside and the Trial Court is directed to G
proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

    9. With the above observations and directions, the appeal
stands allowed.
Devika Gujral                                    Appeal allowed. · H