LexSTATE OF M.P. versus MANISH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 723 .. :i :, ... STATE OF M.P. . A v. MANI SH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.860 of 2015) JULY 06, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] B 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 2012 (8) SCR 753 (2014) 10 sec 285 723 relied on. Para 5 relied on. Para 5 G 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. D The Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 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 of Arms 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 statutor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.