Compromise between the parties is not an end result of the case: SC set aside HC Judgment

image description

 

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Tinku Sharma and others set aside the High Court Judgment and observed that the High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witness and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong. In the case of Shiji, this court found that the case had its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute was resolved by them and therefore this court observed that, ‘the being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations..will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose.

The High Court observation was based on judgment of Shiji @ Pappu and other v. Radhika, on which two judge bench of apex court observed that the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the offences alleged were not compoundable offences as per section 320 of Cr.P.C from the impugned judgments and orders, it appears that the High Court has not at all considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the seriousness of the offences and its social impact. From the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court has mechanically quashed the respective FIRs, in exercise of its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has not at all considered the distinction between a personal or private wrong and social and the social impact.

It was further observed in the given case that the prosecution can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witness and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong.