Raghunath Bhanudas Bhise v. State Of Maha

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3590 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4403 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2003 1.

Smt. Aantikabai w/o Ramdas Bhise, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Malthan, Taluka Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Shantilal s/o Ramdas Bhise, Age: 32 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Malthan, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar.

3.

Vijay s/o Ramdas Bhise, Age: 34 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Malthan, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar.

4.

Sunanda w/o Appasaheb Waghmode, Age: 40 years, Occu: Household, R/o Takhalisim, Taluka Ashti, District Ahmednagar.

...Applicants versus 1.

The State of Maharashtra 2.

Raghunath s/o Bhanudas Bhise, Age: 46 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Malthan, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar.

...Respondents

.....

Mr. P. P. Dhorde, Advocate for applicants Mr. S. A. Ambad, A. P. P. for respondent/State Mr. N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No. 2 WITH

-2CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2003 Raghunath s/o Bhanudas Bhise, Age: 34 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Malathan, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar.

...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.....

Mr. N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant Mr. S. A. Ambad, A. P. P. for respondent/State .....

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2015 ORAL ORDER :

Present Revision is against the conviction ordered by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, whereby the applicant herein namely Raghunath was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

The parties herein are personally present in the Court and are identified by their respective Counsel. In view of their relations, they have decided to settle the matter, and accordingly settled the same.

3.

The parties have placed reliance on the judgment in

-3case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 1(2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein, the Apex Court observed that the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and the same has to be exercised in accordance with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz, (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 4.

I have carefully perused the entire material placed on record and I am of the opinion that the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature. The applicant and complainant are relatives. The main dispute appears to be about the property. 5.

In order to find support to contention of the applicant that the case is fit for exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of applicant, the learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr.,1 and Dimpey Gujral w/o Vivek Gujral and Ors v. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.2 In my view, the principles laid down in both the cases have square applicability to facts of the present case. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the Apex Court has observed in para 31 as 2014(6) SCC 466;

AIR 2013 SC 518;

-4under:

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

-5as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.

It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.

It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.

-6High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." 6.

In that view of the matter, taking overall view in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh (supra), and subsequent judgment in the case of Dimpey Gujral w/o Vivek Gujral and Ors v. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.3, and in case of Narinder Singh (supra), I m of the considered view that, when the parties have amicably settled the dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

7.

In view of contents of the applications, which are admitted to be true and correct by the applicants and non-applicants who are personally present in the Court, the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, stands compounded and as such, the applicant in revision application stands acquitted of the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. AIR 2013 SC 518;

-78.

Criminal Applications and Criminal Revision Application stand allowed.

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ] Tupe/27.08.15