Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Mishra, lodged an FIR on 07.08.1999 alleging that he and Respondent No. 5 were beaten and injured by accused persons wielding firearms, and that Respondent No. 5 was abducted. A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, and 364 IPC. The accused persons filed a revision and a quashing petition, both dismissed by the High Court on 28.05.2010. During trial, the accused persons entered into a settlement agreement dated 28.09.2022 with Respondent No. 5 only, and filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings. The Trial Court rejected the settlement noting that the appellant, the original complainant and an injured victim, was not a party and had objected. However, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC without considering that the appellant, an injured victim and original complainant, was not a party to the settlement and opposed quashing. The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which requires that before quashing on compromise, the court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and ensure that the settlement includes all victims. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC - Settlement with one victim - Non-compoundable offences - The High Court quashed proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 364 IPC based on a settlement between accused and one victim (Respondent No. 5), ignoring that the appellant, who was the original complainant and an injured victim, was not a party to the settlement and objected. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its inherent jurisdiction without considering the position of the injured complainant, and set aside the impugned order, restoring the trial. (Paras 11-13) B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC - Principles for quashing on compromise - Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 - The Supreme Court reiterated that before quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, and ensure that the settlement includes all victims. Quashing is impermissible where the original complainant and injured party is not a consenting party to the compromise. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement agreement when the original complainant and injured victim was not a party to the settlement and opposed the quashing.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.04.2023, and restored the criminal proceedings to the file of the Trial Court for expeditious disposal.
Law Points
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences when the original complainant and injured victim is not a party to the settlement and opposes quashing
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab principles require consideration of nature and gravity of offence and consent of all victims
