Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court has observed that just because the complainant and the accused arrive in a compromise it doesn’t mean that there would be no conviction in a criminal case.
Based on a Supreme Court judgment in Shiji @ Pappu and others vs.Radhika, the High court in two cases has concluded that if there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant then there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused.
The State had approached the Apex court against two High Court orders which quashed the FIRs alleging non-compoundable offenses including Sections 307, 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah has observed that the High Court misread or misapplied the Judgment in Shiji Case to the facts of the cases on hand. It said: "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. In the case of Shiji (supra), this Court found that the case had its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute was resolved by them and therefore this Court observed that, 'that being so, the continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations…will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose'."
The court stated that when an offence is a grave in nature the said judgment would not be applicable having a social impact like offenses under Section 307 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act etc. The bench, therefore, held that the High court erred in mechanically quashing the FIRs by observing that in view of the compromise, there are no chances of recording a conviction and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility. The bench also said: "The High Court has not at all considered the fact that the offenses alleged were non-compoundable offenses as per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. 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 offenses 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 the 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."
86540
103860
630
114
59824