CASE ANALYSIS OF

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS LAXMI NARAYAN

BY
ROCHAK SINGLA
INTERN
1st YEAR,
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE,
MAHARASHTRA
Mob- 09855660004
Gmail- [email protected]

20th APRIL 2020

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this blog are solely of the authors and do not
necessarily portray the official policy/ standing of any agency/
department. Examples of figures and analysis performed within this

1
blog are only examples and only for representational purpose. They
should not be utilized in real-world analytic products without proper
consultation as they are based only on very limited and dated open
source information. The author does not vouch for any authenticity
of facts and figures taken in this article. Assumptions made within
the analysis are hypothetical and does not reflective any position of
any Indian government entity.

This blog neither intends to hurt feelings of any particular section of

the society nor supports communal violence. It has been written only
to express a personal opinion and does not carry any professional
value and is only for educational purpose. The author, further has no
political affiliations. All views expressed in the article are of my own
and do not represent the opinion of any entity which I have been, am
now or will be associated with.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS LAXMI NARAYAN

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

An FIR was lodged in March 2013 against Lature (respondent no.1) Sanjeev (respondent
no.2) and Sant Singh (respondent no.3) and two unknown persons at Police Station Raun,

2
District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 3071 and 342 of the IPC, which was
registered as Crime No.36/13. It was reported that on 03.03.2013 at about 9:30 p.m., the
complainant Charan Singh, who is an operator of LNT machine was extracting sand of Sindh
River at Indukhi Sand Mine and heard firing from another side of the river. The complainant
then heard some counter firing from this side also. He in a matter of seconds further heard the
words “that take away your machine from here” and some more shots were fired. It is alleged
that some people came from across the river, fired some shots and then threatened the
complainant to leave the area and run away with his machine and never return.

Further, it was reported that an unknown person along with the respondents asked Sanjeev
(respondent no.2) t0 sh00t the c0mplainant t0 which Sanjeev (Resp0ndent n0 2) fired 0n the
c0mplainant. The gr0up then after sh00ting the c0mplainant fled away fr0m the sp0t. The
c0mplainant g0t injured fr0m the sh0t and fell 0ff the machine. The bullet had hit the
c0mplainant 0n the elb0w 0f right-hand and he felt unc0nsci0us. The c0mplainant after
rec0vering t0 his senses barely managed t0 reach the village where a pers0n called f0r a
travel and the c0mplainant was admitted in District Hospital.

The respondents were held guilty by the trial court in the alleged incident. The accused after
an amicable compromise with the complainant was acquitted by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh bearing Criminal Case no 8000 of 2013 and proceedings u/s 307 r.w.s 34 of the
Code based on the FIR were quashed by the Hon’ble High court exercising its inherent
powers u/s 4823 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order of the Hon'ble High
Court, quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused of the offences punishable

1
307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and
if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts. —2[When any person offending under
this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
2
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: When a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone
3
482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

3
under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal in the
Apex Court based on the question of law

1. “Whether the High Court has powers u/s 482 of Cr.PC to quash prosecution over non-
compoundable offences u/s 307 and 34 of the IPC based on the FIR on the sole
grounds of a compromise arrived?”

2. "Regarding the apparent conflict between two judgements of the Apex Court given by
a two-member bench; Narinder Singh vs. the State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and
the State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149”

COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF QUASHING PROSECUTION

AFTER COMPROMISE

In the case of Smt. Gomti Devi and others vs State of UP 4 it was held by the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court that continuation of criminal proceedings after compromise would
cause oppression and prejudice to the parties.
4
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27341 of 2012

4
In Parbatbhai Aahir&Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,5it was held by the Apex Court that
the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 and dealing with a plea that the
dispute has been settled, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence and the impact it has on the society. It has further stated that heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute as they have an everlasting impact on the society. Such offences are considered to be
against society and are not private in nature.

FACTS IN ISSUE

A FIR was filed against the respondents for an offence u/s 307 and 34 of the IPC. It was
alleged that the resp0ndents had threatened and sh0t the c0mplainant, due t0 which he
suffered fr0m vari0us injuries. A medical examinati0n pr0ved that 4 0ut 0f the 5 injured were
0f gunsh0t and firearm and the last 0ne was examined via X-Ray pr0bably 0f a fall from the
machine.

The respondents namely Lature (Respondent no.1), Sanjeev (Respondent no.2) and Sant
Singh (respondent no.3) filed an appeal in the High Court regarding quashing of FIR and
prosecution because a compromise arrived between the parties and the complainant was
ready to take back his complaint.

The Hon’ble High Court taking into considerations the facts and the compromised arrived
between the parties quashed the proceedings u/s 307 and 34 of the IPC and acquitted the
respondents of the offence relying upon the judgement of Shiji @ Pappu&Ors vs Radhika
& Anr6

An appeal was filed in the Apex C0urt against the 0rder 0f High C0urt 0f Madhya Pradesh
quashing the pr0secuti0n u/s 307 and 34 0f the IPC 0n the gr0unds based s0lely 0n an
amicable c0mpr0mise arrived between the parties and because 0f c0ntradicting judgements
passed by the H0n'ble Apex C0urt via the tw0-member bench.
5
Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017
6
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2094 OF 2011

5
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT

a. Vehemently submits that the High Court has quashed the prosecution relying solely on the
grounds of the compromise and without considering the effect of the offence on the society
and public at large.
b. Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C have been applied mechanically without
taking into consideration all the facts of the offence and its impact on society.
c. The High Court ought to appreciate the fact that all the compromise and settlements between
the parties need not necessarily meant no chances of conviction or the trial being destined to
exercise of futility.
d. The fact was not given due consideration that the investigation was being carried out, a
statement of the witness recorded and the medical examination well proved the alleged
incident. The prosecution could have proved the offence despite considering the factor that
the complainant might not have supported in the future.
e. The accused were absconding, therefore warrants u/s 70 7 of the Cr.P.C were issued against
them. The accused also had criminal antecedents.

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS

a. Respondents did not appear in the court for the hearing and the accused were alleged to have
been absconding.

SECTION 4828

7
Form of warrant of arrest and duration.
(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer
of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is
executed.
8
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

6
The section gives inherent powers to the High Court. It further provides that nothing in the
code shall limit or affect the powers of the High Court. Such inherent powers should be used
judiciously to prevent abuse of the process of any court or secure ends of justice.

SECTION 3079

The section provides provisions regarding “Attempt to murder”. It is further contended that
the object should be to protect the interest of the society and to deter the criminal in achieving
the professed objective by imposing an appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts
should operate the judicial tool of sentencing to deter the offence and which reflects best to
the conscience and morals of the society. This was reiterated in the case of Siddarama And
Ors vs State of Karnataka10. It was further held that a lot of criminals who go unpunished
create havoc and everlasting impact in the society. It not only fails the judicial mechanism in
operating for reflecting society’s abhorrence of crime but also dents the credibility imposed
by the society’s cry for justice against the criminals. This was upheld in the case of Union of
India v. Kuldeep Singh11, Abu Ram v. Mukna and Ors 12. and Shailesh Jaswantbhai v.
State of Gujarat and Ors.13

GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB14 

The Supreme Court contended that it was against the principles of justice if the High court
quashed criminal proceedings against the accused if the offence involved was heinous and
serious or when public interest is involved. It further contended that any offence primarily of
civil nature like that of offences arising from commercial transactions, where the wrong is
personal in nature and it does not have an impact on the society and the parties have resolved
their dispute by settlement or compromise, the proceedings may be quashed as it would be an
exercise of futility. The Apex Court ruled that in cases of the remote probability of conviction
and where the continuance would be prejudicial to the principles of justice and that to the

9
The Indian Penal Code
10
Appeal (crl.) 959 of 2006
11
(2004 (2) SCC 590)
12
(2005 (10) SCC 597)
13
(2006 (2) SCC 359).
14
((2012) 10 SCC 303)

7
accused, using the inherent power, High Courts may quash the criminal proceedings to secure
the ends of justice.

ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA AND ANR V STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)15

The Supreme Court while quashing the FIR was that the contingencies arising under the
contract, based on which the deposit was to be returned to the Complainant, had not yet
arisen. This was because the developer i.e. the Complainant was yet to handover the owners'
share of the developed property. Even otherwise, the complainant did not demand the amount
from the Appellants. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the charge sheet and allowed
the appeal. The Supreme Court held that while exercising the power under section 482 of the
CRPC, the court can quash the FIR even if the charge sheet has been filed, as the power
under section 482 is to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process and miscarriage of
justice. The Supreme Court also emphasised that powers under section 482 of the CRPC can
be exercised even if a discharge application before the Magistrate’s Court is pending.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SHAMBHU KEWAT & ANR16

It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that to compound offences a criminal court was
circumscribed by the provisions of section 32017 of Cr.P.C. It was further stated by the Apex
Court that quashing a criminal complaint was guided by facts and materials on record of the
case while exercising its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. The primary objective of the
High Courts should be to meet the ends of justice, although it may result in acquittal of the
accused or dismissal of the allegation.

NARINDER SINGH & ORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR18

The Apex Court held that a High Court may quash criminal proceedings exercising powers
u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. even in case of non-compoundable offences when the parties have entered

15
Criminal Appeal No 1395 of 2018.
16
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9278 of 2012
17
The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the
table next following may be compounded….
18
(arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.9547 of 2013)

8
into a settlement/ compromise or agreement. The Apex Court further held that this power
should be used judiciously and sparingly only in cases to meet the ends of justice. Reliance
must be given to the facts and material on record and the High Court should consider
invocation of Section 307 is only prima facie for the namesake or there is actually some dirt
on the accused.

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER 19

It was held in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & another that cautioning
applies to the High Court in the matter of inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The
power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 20 and 22721 of the Constitution and
under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. have no limits. But more the power is more due care and
caution is to be exercised while invoking this power as held in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.
v. Special Judicial Magistrate,22 While invoking inherent powers the High Court does a
triple function. It gives effect to orders passed under the Code, it prevents the abuse of the
process of the Court, and it secures the ends of justice. Inherent Powers help to keep the
prestige and credibility of the judiciary intact and make justice invulnerable to illegal
incursions.

GUIDELINES GIVEN BY SUPREME COURT

In the light of the decision, the Apex Court has laid down guidelines to be considered by
High Courts while exercising the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C;

I. Serious and Heinous Offence: The High courts should refrain themselves in quashing
prosecution for the series offence having an impact on the society. These offences are
not personal in nature but considered as an offence on the conscience of the society.
II. Special Statutes: Any compromise or settlement between parties concerning offences
under a special statute like Prevention of Corruption Act or committed by public
servants while working in that capacity should be avoided from being quashed.
19
(1998) 4 SCC 409.
20
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs…..
21
Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court….
22
(1998) 5 SCC 749.

9
III. Antecedents/conduct of the accused: The High Court while quashing proceedings u/s
482 of the Cr.P.C for non-compoundable offences of personal or private nature must
take into consideration the conduct of the accused.
IV. Offences u/s 307 of IPC: The High Court must take into consideration the facts and
materials of the case whether the invocation of provisions of Section 307 of IPC is for
the namesake or the probability of it being proved concerning the shreds of evidence
on record.
V. Time of compromise: The Courts should also consider the time of compromise as
facts to be considered before quashing prosecutions whether it is before the
investigation, during or after completion of the same.

ANALYSIS

The Hon’ble Apex Court took reliance and material on record from the judgements given by
two-member bench in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 23and the State of Rajasthan vs.
Shambhu Kewat24and stated that despite the same question of law, set guidelines cannot be
established in the cases of quashing of proceedings by the High Court due to a compromise or
settlement between the parties. Every case is considered to be a new day with different
materials, pieces of evidence and facts on records.

The Apex Court laid down the precedents regarding compounding of offences in various case
laws. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy&Ors 25, the Hon'ble High Court
held that the High Court was entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the light of the
court that quashing the proceedings was inevitable to meet the ends of justice. It further held
that the section of Cr.P.C provided the High Courts with the inherent power to quash
proceedings in case of civil and criminal cases. It was further held that court proceedings
must not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon or means of unnecessary harassment and
persecution.

In Madhavrao  Jiwajirao  Scindia and Ors.  v.  SambhajiraoChandrojiraoAngre and

Ors.26 it was held by the Court that the High Court should take into consideration all special
23
(2014) 6 SCC 466
24
(2014) 4 SCC 149
25
(1977) 2 SCC 699
26
(1988) 1 SCC 692,

10
features which appear in a particular case to consider it for continuing the prosecution or
quashing the same. The court must not be utilised for any oblique purpose and wherein the
opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may
while taking into consideration special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though
it may be at a preliminary stage.

In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a prosecution, the very colour and nature of the
material on which the basic structure of the prosecution rests and probability and possibility
that would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding for meeting the ends of justice
or in the interest of justice. It was further contended that meeting the ends of justice are more
important and inevitable than meeting the ends of mere law, though justice has to be
administered and given only according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling
necessity for making these observations is that without a just realisation of the objective and
purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do
justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width
and contours of that salient jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT IN A GLANCE

1. Prosecution u/s 307 and 34 of the IPC are considered as heinous crimes and are considered as
an offence on the general society and is not considered to be an offence of personal nature.
2. Timing of settlement is considered predominantly important whether it is before the
investigation, during or after completion of the investigation.
3. The High Courts have inherent powers to quash proceedings of civil and criminal nature for
compoundable and non-compoundable offences under section 482 of the Code.
4. Antecedents of the accused must be considered in case of quashing of criminal prosecution
for no- compoundable offences which are considered to be private in nature

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

11
The Apex Court after considering various judgements and facts of the present case adjudged
that section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides the High Court with inherent powers to prevent abuse
of the process of any other court or to secure the ends of justice in the public interest. The
provisions of the section do not confer new powers but only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Courts.

The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a FIR or a criminal proceeding based on a
settlement or compromise arrived between the offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation to compound an offence. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
provides High Court with the powers of compounding an offence whereas the power to quash
proceedings is provided under Section 482 of the Code even if the offence is non-
compoundable.

The inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and profusion be exercised
judiciously only to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

The decision whether a complaint or FIR should be quashed on the ground that the offender
and victim have arrived at a compromise or have settled the dispute is adjudged ultimately on
the facts, material, evidence and circumstances of each case and there can be no exhaustive
elaboration of principles that can be formulated.

The High Court while exercising the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code while dealing with
a plea based on the compromise or settlement arrived at must give due regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence and its impact on the society. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately
be quashed though parties have settled the dispute. Such offences bear the colour of not being
of private nature but have a serious and everlasting impact upon society and its conscience.
The decision of the court to continue the trial must be founded on the overriding principle of
public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

The High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings a criminal case is to be used
judiciously and sparingly since the impact of a criminal offence does not only impact the
victim but also the society as a whole. These criminal offences having an overwhelming or

12
predominant element of a civil dispute, stand on a distinct footing in the exercise of the
inherent powers of the High Court to quash.

The powers of quashing u/s 482 of the Code shouldn’t be exercised on an offence of special
statute like The Prevention of Corruption Act even after a compromise between the parties
since they affect the society as a whole any compromise cannot undo the impact any offence
has on the society.

The timing of the compromise also plays a vital role. The Court should lay due consideration
on the fact whether the compromise was arrived at the initiation, during or completion of the
investigation. This will help the courts to analyse whether the charges can be successfully
proved against the accused in case the complainant does not support the trial. The timing of
compromise also denotes the gravity and seriousness of the guilt.

13