Criminal Writ Petition No.118 of 2014

15th December, 2014

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. J.J. MULGAONKAR
Respondent Counsel: Ms. M. GOMES PINTO

Cases Cited:
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2013 ALL SCR 171=(2012) 10 SCC 303 [Para 6,8]
Pranav Vs. State of Goa & Anr., 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2586 [Para 6,9]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, heard forthwith.

3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed his acquittal the in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in Criminal Case No. IPC/6/2014/B pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji (J.M.F.C., for short) by permitting to compound the said offence.

4. An accident had taken place on 14/09/2013 at 04.00 hours near Casino Royal Jetty on one way public road leading from new Patto Bridge to Panaji Market. It is is alleged that the petitioner drove the Figo Car no. GA-05/B-8640 in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to Maruti Eco bearing no. GA-07/E-3046 and Honda City Car bearing No. GA-03/L-3232, as a result of which he himself and the occupants of Figo Car as well as the occupants of Maruti Ecco Car sustained injuries. One of the witnesses namely Kumar Shresta received grievous injury whereas the other witnesses namely . Sudhir Jain, Keshav Katri, Rejina Mangarati and Migma Sherpa sustained simple injuries. The charge sheet filed against the petitioner, in respect of the said accident, gave rise to the said Criminal case No. IPC/6/2014/B.

5. It is seen from the records that all the said injured persons and the accused had filed an application dated 21/11/2014, supported by affidavits of all the said injured persons (victims) before the learned J.M.F.C. for composition of all the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 21/11/2014 allowed the application insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 are concerned and acquitted the petitioner of the said offences. However, since the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. is not compoundable, the same was not allowed to be compounded, as a result of which, the matter is pending before the learned J.M.F.C. only for the said offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C.

6. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. is a minor offence as compared to the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C., and the common ingredient of Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. is commission of an act endangering life and once the offence under Sections 337 and 338 are compounded, nothing remains to be proceeded with and no purpose will be served by asking the petitioner to face the trial only for the said offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. since there is no likelihood of conviction. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another", [(2012)10 SCC 303] : [2013 ALL SCR 171], he submitted that the proceedings be quashed in the exercise of inherent powers of this court and the petitioner be acquitted of the said offence. He also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of "Pranav Vs. State of Goa and another", [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2586].

7. Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that the complaint is filed by a Police Officer namely Head Constable Shri Anil G. Kurtikar and that the Police Officer cannot compound the said offence.

8. In the case of "Gian Singh" [2013 ALL SCR 171] (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."

9. The application dated 21/11/2014 was filed by all the victims i.e. all the injured persons and present petition and the victims had filed their affidavits before the J.M.F.C. thereby compounding the offences. Therefore, it goes without saying that in order to maintain harmonious relationship between two sides, the parties want to compound the offence. Mr. Anil G. Kurtikar, the Head Constable, who has filed the complaint on behalf of the State, is merely a formal complainant and he is otherwise not the victim. In the case of "Pranav "(supra), the offences that were involved, were under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Section 338 was compounded before the trial Court. This Court by judgment dated 29/04/2013 allowed the writ petition in order to secure the ends of justice so that the criminal proceedings are put to an end and ultimately the Criminal Proceedings were quashed. Since the chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote, I am of the view that the Criminal Proceedings must be put to an end as a result of compromise between the petitioner and the victims.

10. In view of the above, the petition is allowed.

(a) Criminal Proceedings in Case No. IPC/6/2014/B pending before the J.M.F.C., Panaji are quashed and set aside. Bail bonds of the petitioner, if any, are cancelled.

(b) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

11. Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Petition allowed.