LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus DHRUV GURJAR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
DHRUV GURJAR AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 22, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 320 and 482 – In
SLP (Crl.) No.9859/13, FIR was lodged against the accused persons
for offences punishable u/ss. 307, 294 and 34, IPC – Accused filed
petition u/s.482, CrPC before the High Court for quashing the
criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the basis of a
compromise arrived at between the accused and the complainant –
High Court quashed the criminal proceedings – In SLP (Crl.)
No.9860/13, FIR filed against the accused persons for offences
punishable inter alia u/s.394, IPC and 25/27, Arms Act – Accused
approached the High Court for quashing said FIR – High Court
quashed the criminal proceedings – On appeal, held: High Court
has not at all considered the fact that the offences alleged were
non-compoundable offences as per s.320, CrPC – It did not at all
consider the seriousness of the offences, its social impact and
mechanically quashed the respective FIRs – High Court did not
consider the distinction between a personal or private wrong and a
social wrong and its social impact – Without proper application of
mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, the High Court
materially erred in quashing the respective FIRs observing that in
view of the compromise, there are no chances of recording conviction
and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility – In SLP(Crl.)
No.9860/2013, all the accused were absconding – After a period
of approximately three months after the incident, alleged to happen
on 21.12.12, accused approached the High Court u/s.482, Cr.P.C.,
on 12.03.2013 – In the meantime, the accused managed to get the
affidavits of the complainant and the two witnesses dtd. 09.02.2013
and the High Court quashed the FIR on 15.03.2013, within three
days from the date of filing the petition – Accused persons were
facing number of trials for the serious offences – High Court did
not consider the antecedents of the accused – It ought to have been
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 433
433
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
more vigilant and consider facts and circumstances under which
the accused entered into the settlement – Impugned judgments set
aside– Respective FIRs/investigation/criminal proceedings be
proceeded against the respective accused – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss. 34, 294 307 and 394 –Arms Act– ss.25 and 27.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has not at all considered the
fact that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences
as per Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. From the
impugned judgments and orders, it appears that the High Court
has not at all considered the relevant facts and circumstances of
the case, more particularly the seriousness of the offences and
its social impact. From the impugned judgments and orders
passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has
mechanically quashed the respective FIRs, in exercise of its
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has not at all
considered the distinction between a personal or private wrong
and a social wrong and the social impact. In the case at hand, the
High Court has not at all taken pains to scrutinise the entire
conspectus of facts in proper perspective and has quashed the
criminal proceedings mechanically. Even, the quashing of the
respective FIRs by the High Court in the present cases inter alia
for the offences under Sections 307, 294 and 34 of the IPC and
394 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act respectively,
and that too in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is just contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court in a catena
of decisions. [Para 16.1][444-E-G; 445-A, B]
1.2 The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not
in every case where the complainant has entered into a
compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction.
Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to
opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still
can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining
the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more
particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/
or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong. [Para 18]
[451-F, G]
1.3 Without proper applExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.