(2003) 4 SCC 675 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Distinction – Court, u/s 320, is guided solely by compromise between the parties – In section 482, court is required to take a decision to meet the ends of justice – Power u/s 482 is not limited by section 320 (Para 12)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – If it is treated a heinous crime, it will be crime against society – Such offender has to be punished – Settlement between accused and victim would be of no consequence. (Para 17, 18)
(d) Criminal Trial – Sentencing – Sentencing guidelines – Aim at achieving consistencies in awarding sentences – In absence of such guidelines, as in India, Courts go by their perception. (Para 17, 18)
2013 (14) SCALE 235; (2011) 10 SCC 705; 2013 (14) SCALE 235 – Relied upon
(2011) 13 SCC 311; 2012 AIR SCW 5333 – Referred
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – FIR u/s 307 IPC – Charge sheet filed – Evidence yet to be adduced – Long standing disputes between parties – Village elders continuously trying to make the parties to compromise – Efforts fructified – In view of settlement no witness likely to turn up to support prosecution – Despite nature of injuries, FIR and the proceedings ought to have been quashed. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
They struck a compromise with the complainant and on that basis they prayed for quashing the FIR u/s 482 CrPC.
High Court, in view of injuries to the complainant, refused to invoke its extraordinary power u/s 482.
Finding of the Court:
FIR and the proceedings ought to have been quashed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Act Referred : CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.320(2), S.320, S.482, S.320(1)INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.324, S.307, S.34, S.323Cases Referred:
1. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment/final order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.27343/2013. It was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for quashing of FIR No.121/14.7.2010 registered under Sections 307/324/323/34,IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 22.7.2013 entered into between the petitioners ( who are accused in the said FIR) and respondent No.2 (who is the complainant). The High Court has refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code on the ground that four injuries were suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injury No.3 were serious in nature. The High Court, thus, refused to accept the compromise entered into between the parties, the effect whereof would be that the petitioners would face trial in the said FIR.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties at length.
4. It may be stated at the outset that the petitioners herein, who are three in number, have been charged under various provisions of the IPC including for committing offence punishable under Section 307, IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder. FIR No.121/14.7.2010 was registered. In the aforesaid FIR, the allegations against the petitioners are that on 9.7.2010 at 7.00 A.M. while respondent No.2 was going on his motorcycle to bring d