Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2. Ramawatar (Appellant) and Prembai (Complainant), who are neighbours and live in adjoining houses, were entangled in a property dispute with respect to a portion of land over which Prembai’s house was built. On 25.06.1994, Ramawatar and his brother Katulal @ Kuddu (Co­accused) broke down a wall to make a door that opened into the house of Prembai. When this was resisted by her, a quarrel ensued between the parties and the Appellant threw a brick at the Complainant. Thereafter, this incident was reported and a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Devendra Nagar on the same date itself, and an M.L.C was also performed. Since the nature of the injury was simple, and the offence was found non­cognizable, the Police took no further steps. On the following day, i.e., 26.06.1994, when the Complainant was sitting in front of her residence, the Appellant and his brother appeared at the scene. They were visibly enraged by the fact that Prembai had lodged an F.I.R. against them. They started abusing her with repeated reference to her caste whilst also threatening her of dire consequences. After that, the Complainant and her husband Chotelal reported this incident before the Harijan Welfare Police Station, and the subject­F.I.R. under the SC/ST Act was lodged against the Accused.

3. The investigation commenced in light of the afore­stated facts. Upon collection of substantial evidence, Appellant and co­accused were committed to trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

4. The Trial Court noted that the Complainant belonged to the ‘Prajapati’ community which is a Scheduled Caste. It was also observed that the parties had candidly admitted to a pending property dispute between them. The Trial Court further discerned that the prosecution witnesses had, by and large, supported the version of the Complainant and had indubitably substantiated that Ramawatar and Kuddu used deprecatory language upon the Complainant. It was found that the Appellant had made specific reference to the Complainant’s caste escorted by the intent to insult her. The actions of the Appellant & co­accused Kuddu were thus held to be in contravention of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Trial Court, therefore, convicted both the accused persons for the said offences and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

5. Discontented with their conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, co­accused Kuddu passed away, and the appeal only survived qua the present Appellant. His primary contention before the High Court was that the abuses, if any, were not meant to demean the Complainant on account of her being a member of the Scheduled Caste community. Instead, the incident occurred on account of a property dispute between the parties. It was thus submitted that the alleged incident could not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. However, after re­appraising the evidence on record, the High Court disagreed with the Appellant’s contention and held that there was sufficient material to establish that the Complainant being a member of the Scheduled Caste community was humiliated by the Appellant. Thus, concurring with the findings of the Trial Court, the High Court maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant.

6. Aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court. CONTENTIONS:

7. When the instant appeal came up for hearing, what prompted this Court to issue notice was that the matter had been settled between the parties, and the Complainant had filed an application for compromise. Reiterating the same plea, learned Counsel for the Appellant canvassed before us that the parties are residents of the same village and there is no existing enmity between them. It was submitted that the parties wished to settle their dispute so that they may continue to have cordial relations. He drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr[1], wherein, it was held that a property dispute between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste would not attract an offence under the SC/ST Act, unless the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Learned Counsel for the Appellant thus prayed for invocation of this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the instant criminal proceedings. The Appellant’s stand and the application for compromise were fully supported by the learned Counsel for the Complainant.

8. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent State, without controverting the factum of compromise, vehemently opposed such a recourse. It was contended that there was a concurrent finding of conviction, and no substantial question of law was involved in the present appeal. Referring to the decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Lal & Anr v. State of J&K[2], Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr v. State of Orissa[3] and Bankat & Anr v. State of Maharastra[4], learned State Counsel submitted that the purported settlement between the parties is inconsequential as the offence in question is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’). It was thus argued that the present case did not warrant any interference by this Court. ANALYSIS:

9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a ‘non­compoundable offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act?

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh[5], wherein, a two­ Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription

5 Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extra­ordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non­heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post­conviction, the Courts should, inter­alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: “19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” [Emphasis Applied]

12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and re­iterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.

13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post­conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub­judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine­qua­non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extra­ordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow­hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).

14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far­reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do “complete justice”. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr[6] has eloquently clarified this point as follows: