MOHD SHOAIB HAIDER KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed to quash the FIR No. 22/2008 registered by the Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai, on21st January, 2008 for the offences under Sections 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The main ground for quashing of FIR is that the complainant and the applicants have settled the differences in between themselves.

(2.) IT may be stated at the outset that the criminal law is based on the principles that the offences committed are against the State and also against the victim. Therefore, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is such that most of the serious offences are not compoundable, less serious offences are compoundable with the permission of the court and some trivial offences are compoundable at the behest of the complainant. If this scheme is kept in mind, then it will be clear that even if the victims or the injured are prepared to compromise the matter the State itself insists on conviction and punishment because the offence is against the State. In any case the applicants have not come to this court for compounding of the offence but have come for quashing of the FIR against them.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants has relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court in which the offences were allowed to be compounded, being the case of Mahesh Chand and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 681. This was an appeal pending before the Supreme Court where the conviction under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code had been challenged and during the hearing of the appeal the parties wanted to compound the offence. The Supreme Court noted, "the accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section307, IPC. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it as a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. " Then the Supreme Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 held as under : "3. We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence. 4. We, therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. The connected papers filed in this connection before this Court be transmitted to the trial court for the purpose. The parties, if they want, may file additional documents. " Obviously the court considered this case to be a special case and exercised the power under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and as such this judgment is not a precedent for this court to follow. It may also be noted that while the Supreme Court passed this order the whole evidence was before the Supreme Court as the accused were already convicted. We are only dealing with the FIR.