MANOJ SHARMA v. STATE & ORS

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 539

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

MANOJ SHARMA v. STATE & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 14 S. C. R. 539 MANOJ SHARMA -- I \/. STATE & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1619 of 2008) OCTOBER 16, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] --+, Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226: Quashing of criminal proceeding! Fl. R. by High Court - In exercise ofpower/discretion under s. 482 Cr. P CJArticle 226 of the Constitution, when parties entering into settlement! compromise - Held: Exercise of such power by the High Court in no way limited by provisions uls. 320 Cr. PC. - Power under s. 482 Cr. PC. /Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and to be exercised on facts of each case - On facts, continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exer- . cise in futility, hence, quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, , '( 1973 - Ss. 320 and 482. Doctrines: Doctrine of 'Judicial restraint' and 'Judicial activism' - Applicability of.

The question which arose for determination before this Court was as to whether a First Information Report lodged against accused for committing the offences un- ,.. ___... _ der Ss. 471, 467, 420, 120-8 and s. 34 IPC could be quashed either under s. 482 Cr. P. C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wh~n the accused and the complainant have compromised and settled the matter between themselves. Respondent-State submitted that having regard to 4 the specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding compounding of offences, and indicating what offences may be compromised either with or without the )------leave of the Court, possibly the decision rendered in B. S. I Joshi's case required a second look. - Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD (Per Altamas Kabir, J. ): 1. 1 The ultimate exercise of discretion under Section 482 Cr. P. C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution is with . J.

- the Court which has to exercise such jurisdiction in the facts of each case. It has been explained in B. S. Joshi's r case that the said power is in no way limited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. This Court is unable to disagree with such statement of law. (Para - 6) [547-A & B] 8. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana 2003(4) SCC 675 JT 2003(3) SC 277 =AIR 2003 SC 1386 - relied on. 1. 2 In view of the nature of the offences set out in the complaint, the High Court did not consider it an appropri- 7' J ),. ate case for exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the same. The High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused is of a private nature.

It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police au- ~ thorities, but the dispute between the parties remained ' ... one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. The matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. (Paras -- 7 & I. 8) [547- C-G] + ~ ' 1. In the facts of this case, continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. Hence, the or- -) der of the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is quashed. (Paras - 9 & ·10) [547-G-H; 548-A] Per Markandey Katju, J. (Concurring): 1. 1 A perusal o. f Section 320 Cr. P. C. shows that offences under Section 46.

8, 471, 34 and 120-B IPC, as mentioned in the FIR in question, cannot even be compounded with the permission of the Court. In fact, Section 320(9) Cr. P. C. expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. The offences mentioned in the FIR were not compoundable except in relation to the allegations about Section 420 IPC. There are other provisions in the IPC which apparently cannot be compounded even with the permission ot the Court in view of Section 320 (9) Cr. P. C. However, this was creating a lot of difficulty and hardship to the public and hence a way out was found by this Court in B. S. Joshi and )' Others vs. State of Haryana. (Paras -10, 11 & 12) [550-F,G,H; 551-A&B] B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana 2003(4) SCC 675 JT 2003(3) SC 277 =AIR 2003 SC 1386 - referred to. 1. 2. This Court relying on its own decision in the case of State of Karanataka vs. L.

Muniswamy 1977 (2) SCC 699 observed that the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P;C. can quash the criminal proceedings if it comes to the con- } .. -! not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a com- A promise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual. 25. With these observations, I respectfully agree with my learned brother Hon'ble Kabir J. that this appeal is to be al- 8 lowed and the criminal proceedings in question are to be quashed. Appeal allowed. No costs. S. K. S. Appeal allowed. •t