//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec.307/34 I.P.C. -Not Compoundable – petition to quash the case under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. on compromise – High court allowed the same – Apex court held that 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. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High 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 to 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.” It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above, that offence under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute between the parties inter se but is held to be a crime against the society. Further, guidelines are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application for quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the issues between themselves. When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case to the facts of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the complainant were very serious in nature. The accused was armed with sword and had inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as well as on the left arm of the complainant. The complainant was attacked five times with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were struck on his head. But for the timely arrival of brother of the complainant and another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant, the attacks could have continued. In a case like this, the High Court should not have accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2014 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013] |STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH |…..APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |DEEPAK & ORS. |…..RESPONDENT(S) = 2014- Sept. month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41903

Sec.307/34 I.P.C. – Not compoundable  – petition to quash the case under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. on compromise – High court allowed the same – Apex court held that  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.   On  the  other hand, where the  prosecution  evidence  is  almost  complete  or  after  the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,  normally the High 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 to 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.” It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above,  that  offence under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute  between  the  parties

inter se but is held to be a crime against the society. Further,  guidelines are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application  for quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the  issues between themselves. When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case  to  the  facts of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the  complainant were very serious in nature. The  accused  was  armed  with  sword  and had inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as  well  as  on the left arm of the complainant. The complainant  was  attacked  five  times with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were  struck  on his head. But for the timely arrival  of  brother  of  the  complainant  and another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant,  the  attacks  could

have continued. In a  case  like  this,  the  High  Court  should  not  have accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.=

 

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  IPC  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 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 & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. ; 2011 (10) SCC 705.=

Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category  of  heinous

and serious offences and therefore are 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  [pic]settlement  and  quash  the  criminal

proceedings whereas in the latter 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.

29.7. 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.  

On  the  other

hand, where the  prosecution  evidence  is  almost  complete  or  after  the

conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,  normally

the High 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 to 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.”

It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above,  that  offence

under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute  between  the  parties

inter se but is held to be a crime against the society.

Further,  guidelines

are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application  for

quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the  issues

between themselves.

When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case  to  the  facts

of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the  complainant

were very serious in nature.

The  accused  was  armed  with  sword  and  had

inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as  well  as  on

the left arm of the complainant.

The complainant  was  attacked  five  times

with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were  struck  on

his head. But for the timely arrival  of  brother  of  the  complainant  and

another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant,  the  attacks  could

have continued.

In a  case  like  this,  the  High  Court  should  not  have

accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this  appeal  is  allowed  and  the

order of the High  Court  is  set  aside.  The  concerned  Magistrate  shall

proceed with the trial of the case.

2014- Sept. month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41903

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2014
[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9854 of 2013]
|STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH |…..APPELLANT(S) |
|VERSUS | |
|DEEPAK & ORS. |…..RESPONDENT(S) |
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

As counsel for both the parties expressed their willingness to argue the
matter finally at this stage, we heard the appeal finally.

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 IPC 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).

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.

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 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 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.

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 IPC read with
Section 34 of IPC. The respondent filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 3527 of
2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior under
Section 482 of Cr. PC 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 IPC read with Section 34 of
IPC.

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 & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. ; 2011 (10) SCC 705.

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 & Ors. (supra) is not applicable
to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the incident in question had
its genesis and origin in a civil dispute between the parties and having
regard to the same the Court had accepted the settlement and quashed the
proceedings when it found that parties had resolved the said dispute
between them. It was pleaded that on the contrary, in the present case
accused persons are habitual offenders and they had threatened the
complainant and extracted the compromise which was not voluntary. The
learned counsel also referred to the injuries suffered by the complainant
which are described in the report as a result of the medical examination
carried out on the person of the complainant immediately after the
incident. He pleaded that the offence under Section 307 of IPC was, prima
facie, made out and for such a heinous crime the High Court should not have
exercised its discretion under Section 482 of the Cr. PC and quashed the
proceedings as the offence in question was non-compoundable under Section
320 of the Code.

The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted that since
the parties had settled the matter, the High Court had rightly accepted the
compromise between the parties. This action of the High Court was justified
as parties had buried the hatchet and wanted to leave peacefully. He thus,
pleaded that this Court should not interfere with the aforesaid exercise of
discretion by the High Court.
After examining the facts of this case and the medical record, we are of
the opinion that it was not a case where High Court should have quashed the
proceedings in exercise of its discretion under Section 482 of the Code. We
may, at the outset, refer to the judgment of this Court in Gulabdas & Ors.
v. State of M.P.; 2011 (12) SCALE 625 wherein following view was taken:-
“7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question
that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the
offence under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the
compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the negative.
This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are
not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot
be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the
complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in this
regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal & Anr. v.
State of J&K; (1999) 2 SCC 213 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh;
(2008) 15 SCC 667. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the
prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos 2 & 3
stand convicted”.
A similar situation, as in the present case, was found to have arisen in
the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149. In that
case also, the High Court had accepted the settlement between the parties
in an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and set the
accused at large by acquitting them. The settlement was arrived at during
the pendency of appeal before the High Court against the order of
conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge holding the accused persons
guilty of the offence under Sections 307/34 IPC. Some earlier cases of
compounding of offence under Section 307 IPC were taken note of, noticing
that under certain circumstances, the Court had approved the compounding
whereas in certain other cases such a course of action was not accepted.
In that case, this Court took the view that the High Court was not
justified in accepting the compromise and setting aside the conviction.
While doing so, following discussion ensued:
“12. We find in this case, such a situation does not arise. In the instant
case, the incident had occurred on 30-10-2008. The trial court held that
the accused persons, with common intention, went to the shop the injured
Abdul Rashid on that day armed with iron rod and a strip of iron and, in
furtherance of their common intention, had caused serious injuries on the
body of Abdul Rashid, of which Injury 4 was on his head, which was of a
serious nature.

13. Dr Rakesh Sharma, PW 5, had stated that out of the injuries caused to
Abdul Rashid, Injury 4 was an injury on the head and that injury was
‘grievous and fatal for life’. PW 8, Dr Uday Bhomik, also opined that a
grievous injury was caused on the head of Abdul Rashid. Dr Uday conducted
the operation on injuries of Abdul Rashid as a neurosurgeon and fully
supported the opinion expressed by PW 5 Dr Rakesh Sharma that Injury 4
was ‘grievous and fatal for life’.

14. We notice that the gravity of the injuries was taken note of by the
Sessions Court and it had awarded the sentence of 10 years’ rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, but not by
the High Court. The High Court has completely overlooked the various
principles laid down by this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and has committed a mistake in taking the view that, the
injuries were caused on the body of Abdul Rashid in a fight occurred on the
spur in the heat of the moment. It has been categorically held by this
Court in Gian Singh that the Court, while exercising the power under
Section 482 CrPC, must have ‘due regard to the nature and gravity of the
crime’ and ‘the societal impact’. Both these aspects were completely
overlooked by the High Court. The High Court in a cursory manner, without
application of mind, blindly accepted the statement of the parties that
they had settled their disputes and differences and took the view that it
was a crime against ‘an individual’, rather than against ‘the society at
large’.

15. We are not prepared to say that the crime alleged to have been
committed by the accused persons was a crime against an individual, on the
other hand it was a crime against the society at large. Criminal law is
designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is the
regulation of conduct and activities within the society. Why Section
307 IPC is held to be non-compoundable, is because the Code has identified
which conduct should be brought within the ambit of non-compoundable
offences. Such provisions are not meant just to protect the individual but
the society as a whole. The High Court was not right in thinking that it
was only an injury to the person and since the accused persons (sic
victims) had received the monetary compensation and settled the matter, the
crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger
objective to achieve, that is, safety and protection of the people at large
and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals
at large so that such crimes would not be committed by [pic]anyone and
money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the
society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present, will
leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will
encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful
coexistence and welfare of the society at large.”
(emphasis supplied)

We would like to mention at this stage that in some cases offences under
Section 307 IPC are allowed to be compounded, whereas in some other cases
it is held to be contrary. This dichotomy was taken note of by referring
to those judgments, in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, and by reconciling those judgments, situations
and circumstances were discerned where compounding is to be allowed or
refused. To put it simply, it was pointed out as to under what
circumstances the Courts had quashed the proceedings acting upon the
settlement arrived at between the parties on the one hand and what were the
reasons which had persuaded the Court not to exercise such a discretion.
After thorough and detailed discussion on various facets and after
revisiting the entire law on the subject, following principles have culled
out in the said decision:
“29. 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:

29.1. 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 [pic]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.

29.2. 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.

29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the 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.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly 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.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as 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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore are 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 [pic]settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter 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.

29.7. 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. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High 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 to 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.”
It is clear from the reading of the passages extracted above, that offence
under Section 307 is not treated as a private dispute between the parties
inter se but is held to be a crime against the society. Further, guidelines
are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application for
quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the issues
between themselves.

When we apply the ratio/principle laid down in the said case to the facts
of the present case, we find that the injuries inflicted on the complainant
were very serious in nature. The accused was armed with sword and had
inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as well as on
the left arm of the complainant. The complainant was attacked five times
with the sword by the accused person out of which two blows were struck on
his head. But for the timely arrival of brother of the complainant and
another lady named Preeti, who rescued the complainant, the attacks could
have continued. In a case like this, the High Court should not have
accepted the petition of the accused under Section 482 of the Code.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the
order of the High Court is set aside. The concerned Magistrate shall
proceed with the trial of the case.

………………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)

………………………………………J.
(A.K. SIKRI)

New Delhi;
September 10, 2014.

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,759,772 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,855 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com