Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two appeals by the State of Madhya Pradesh against separate High Court orders quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. In the first case (Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013), the respondents were accused of offences under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 294 (obscene acts), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR alleged that on 17.12.2012, the accused Dhruv Gurjar fired a 12 bore gun at the complainant, causing pellet injuries on his forehead, left shoulder, and left ear. The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) relying on a compromise and the decision in Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika. In the second case (Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Criminal) No.9860/2013), the respondents were accused of offences under Section 394 IPC (robbery), Sections 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleged that on 21.12.2012, the accused robbed three truck drivers of cash and mobile phones at gunpoint. The High Court similarly quashed the proceedings on compromise grounds. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing serious non-compoundable offences solely on the basis of compromise without considering the gravity of the offences and public interest. The Court emphasized that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the bar under Section 320 CrPC for compoundable offences. The appeals were allowed, the High Court orders were set aside, and the criminal proceedings were restored for trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Non-Compoundable Offences - Compromise - The High Court quashed FIRs for offences under Sections 307, 294, 34 IPC and Section 394 IPC, 11/13 M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, 25/27 Arms Act solely on ground of compromise between parties - Supreme Court held that High Court erred in quashing serious non-compoundable offences without considering gravity of offence and public interest - Held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass the bar under Section 320 CrPC for compoundable offences (Paras 11-15). B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Compromise - The accused fired at complainant with intention to kill, causing pellet injuries on forehead, left shoulder, and left ear - Supreme Court held that such a serious offence cannot be quashed merely on compromise as it affects public order and societal interest - Held that trial must proceed despite settlement (Paras 11, 14). C) Criminal Law - Robbery - Section 394 IPC - Compromise - Accused allegedly robbed complainants of cash and mobile phones at gunpoint - Supreme Court held that robbery is a serious offence against property and person, and quashing on compromise is impermissible without considering public interest - Held that High Court's order was unsustainable (Paras 12, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences such as Sections 307 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, solely on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court dated 8.4.2013 and 15.3.2013, and restored the criminal proceedings against the accused for trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash non-compoundable offences involving serious crimes like attempt to murder and robbery
- merely on the basis of compromise
- High Court must consider gravity of offence and public interest before quashing proceedings
