Landmark judgment of Supreme court for quashing of prosecution against accused on ground of compromise

 Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of
this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and
held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties
have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved 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;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences
under the special statutes like 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) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the
Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot
be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code,
on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. 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
framing 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. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is

filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is
not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of
the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra)
should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of
non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do
not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused;
the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed
with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.349 OF 2019

The State of Madhya Pradesh  V Laxmi Narayan 
M.R. SHAH, J.
Dated:MARCH 05, 2019

Print Page

Whether Murder case can be settled in Lokadalat?

Coming back to the facts of the present case, the
offence alleged is under Section 302 of the IPC being noncompoundable
in nature, the Chief Judicial Magistrate before
whom the matter was pending had no jurisdiction to refer the case
to the Lok Adalat. Similarly, the Presiding Officer of the Mega Lok
Adalat had no jurisdiction either to summon the record of a noncompoundable
offence from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate
or to entertain the same under the Act. Nevertheless, the Presiding
Officer of the Mega Lok Adalat had audacity to dispose of the
criminal case instituted under Section 302 of the IPC. Obviously,
the order has been passed in a collusive manner to close down a
criminal case involving the allegation of culpable homicide
amounting to murder.
31. Keeping a final report submitted by the police in a
serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC pending for over 23
months without passing any order on the file is a serious matter. 
Further, disposing of a case registered under Section 302 of the IPC
on the date of receipt of the file by the Presiding Officer of Mega
Lok Adalat in absence of the parties as also in absence of a
compromise or settlement and that too without recording the
dispute between the parties by affixing a pre-prepared perfunctory
award stamp is an act of absolute haste and shows lack of sense of
responsibility. A judge‟s role is to serve the community in the
pivotal role of administering justice according to law. The
competent and conscientious performance by the judicial officers
while presiding Lok Adalats is the most effective way to maintain
respect for the rule of law. Presiding a bench of Lok Adalat by a
judicial officer is not a glamorous work to dispose of cases in order
to improve public image. It is not an exercise of self-promotion. It
is necessary to remember that enthusiasm and competition among
the judicial officers to dispose of cases in Lok Adalats cannot be
made an excuse for passing orders without regard to the rules and
the procedures. Judges are selected because of their recognized
expertise in the area that they are being asked to work. They are
expected to be familiar with the provisions of the Act while
presiding a Lok Adalat. Under no circumstances, the judges can
afford to preside a bench of Lok Adalat for mere entertainment.
 There is a universal principle as old as the law that the Patna 
proceedings of a court or an authority without jurisdiction are
nullity and void ab initio and its judgment therein without effect
either on person or property.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1105 of 2015

Urmila Masomat Wife of Late Narayan Choudhary Vs  The State of Bihar 


CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

Date : 12-07-2016

Print Page

Offence u/s 324 of IPC became non compoundable from date of notification that is from 31.12.2009

In the case at hand, the incident occurred on 21.02.2009. The Sessions Court ultimately found the convict-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along. Offence under Section 324 was compoundable before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) came into force. Though the Act 25 of 2005 was published on 23.06.2006, it was stipulated that it shall come into effect only from the date of its notification. The Amendment Act was brought into force, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Evidently, on the date of occurrence, the offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court in view of the provisions prescribed in the table under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
13. The Amendment Act of 2005, intended to give effect w.e.f. the date of notification. So, before the date of notification though the amendment was made and published, it had no force and therefore, the provision which was existing before the date of coming into force and the Amendment Act shall operate. Normally in cases of all compoundable offences, compromise is encouraged and often such cases are referred to Lokadalat or mediation centers to have a settlement of the dispute between the parties with a view to bring amity between the parties and to maintain peace and tranquility. Compromise, in all cases compoundable in nature, is for the benefit and welfare of the society as a whole and therefore, the Courts may encourage such compounding where the parties voluntarily come forward to do so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)

Crl. Rev. P. No. 84 of 2012

Decided On: 11.01.2013

 Prabhat Das and Ors.Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: S.C. Das, J.
citation;2013 CR L J 1712( Gauhati)

Print Page