Criminal Appeal No. 1985 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013). Case: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Deepak. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1985 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013) |
| Judges | Jasti Chelameswar and Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 320, 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 161, 307 |
| Judgement Date | September 10, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Arjan Kumar Sikri, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. As counsel for both the parties expressed their willingness to argue the matter finally at this stage, we heard the appeal finally.
3. This appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the High Court in the petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said petition was filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for compounding/quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 171/13 Under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha (M.P.) and consequent criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 582 of 2013 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha. The FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant).
4. The complainant (Respondent No. 3), Deepak Ghenghat S/o. Laxminarayan Ghenghat, had alleged that on 11.3.2013 at about 9.45 p.m., while he was going to Baraipura Chauraha for buying Gutkha for his mother, Deepak Nahariya and Mukesh Nahariya (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) met him near Sweepar Mohalla, Gali No. 1. On being asked by Respondent No. 1, in an abusive language, as to where he was proceeded to, the complainant protested against the use of such foul language. At this, Respondent No. 1 took out the sword which he was carrying and with an intention to kill the complainant, he inflicted a blow on his forehead by shouting 'you have lodged the report against my elder brother, today I will kill you'. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, inflicted blows above the ear on the back side of the head and on the left arm. When the complainant informed that he would lodge a report with the Police, Respondent No. 2 caught hold of him and threatened that if he lodges the report, then he would not let the complainant reside in the Mohalla. By that time, brother of the complainant Suraj and one Preeti reached the spot and rescued the complainant.
5. On the same date, the complainant lodged F.I.R. No. 171 of 2013 at Police Station Kotwali, Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable Under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code which triggered the criminal investigation and complainant Deepak Ghenghat was sent for medical examination. Thereafter, on 12.3.2013 police reached on the spot and prepared the spot map, recorded the statement of the witnesses Under Section 161, arrested the accused persons and seized certain articles.
6. On 14.4.2013, articles which were seized were sent for forensic examination. After due and proper investigation charge sheet was filed on 6.4.2013 for the offences punishable Under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Respondent filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 3527 of 2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings, arising out of the F.I.R. No. 171/2013 against the Respondent on the basis of compromise, registered on 11.3.2013 Under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
7. The High Court has accepted the said compromise after taking note of the submissions made before it at the Bar, and the fact that the complainant had also submitted that he did not wish to prosecute the accused persons as he had settled all the disputes amicably with them. For quashing the proceedings, the High Court has referred to the judgment of this Court in Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr. 2011 (10) SCC 705.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State is before us in the present appeal. It is primarily submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the judgment in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial