STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER

                   [2013] 12 S.C.R. 973


                 STATE OF RAJASTHAN                            A
                             v.
           SHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER
           (Criminal Appeal No. 2018 of 2013)
                  NOVEMBER 28, 2013
                                                               B
    [K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - s.307 - Conviction under, by trial
courl - In appeal, the offence compounded by High Courl on
the basis of compromise between parlies on account of C
monetary compensation paid to the victim - Held: Offence u/
s.307 is non-compoundable - High Courl compounded the
offence by over-looking the 'nature and gravity of the crime'
and 'the societal impact' - It accepted the compromise
between parlies without application of mind and wrongly took D
the view that it was a crime against 'an individual' and not 'the
 society at large' - Settlement by monetary compensation
 would not wipe off the crime against the accused - Taking of
 levient view on serious offences, would defeat the objective
 of the criminal justice system - Matter remitted to High Courl E
 to decide the appeal on merit - Code of Criminal Procedure,
  1973 - s.320 - Administration of Criminal Justice.

   Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.320 and 482 -
Power under -Distinction between - Discussed.
                                                               F
     The trial court convicted the accused uls. 307 r/w.
s.34 IPC. In appeal, High Court, on the request of the
victim and accused parties to compound the offence,
acquitted the accused, holding that it was a case where
the fight between the parties had occurred on the spur         G
and heat of the moment and the assault was a crime
'against an individual', rather than 'against the society at
large. Hence the present appeal.

                             973                                   H
    974     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A      Allowing the appeal and remitting I.he matter to High
    Court, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. Criminal law is designed as a mechanism
   for achieving social control and its purpose is the
   regulation of conduct and activities within the society.
8
   Provisions such as s.307 IPC are not meant, just to
   protect the individual, but the society as a whole. High
   Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury
   to the person and since the accused persons had
   received the monetary compensation and settled the
C matter, the crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal
  justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is
  safety and protection of the people at large and it would
  be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals
  at large so that such crimes would not be committed by
D any one and money would not be a substitute for the
  crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view
  on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong
  impression about the criminal justice system and will
  encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the
E peaceful co-existence and welfare of the society at large.
  [Para 15) [984-C-F]

       1.2. In the instant case, the trial Court held that the
  accused persons, with common intention, went to the
F shop of the injured on the day of the incident, armed with
  iron rod and a strip of iron and, in furtherance of their
  common intention, had caused serious injuries on the
  body of the injured, of which injury number 4 was on his
  head, which was of a serious nature. PW5, the doctor
G stated that injury no. 4 was "grievous and fatal for life".
  PWS, who had conducted the operation on injuries of the
  injured as a Neuro Surgeon also fully supported the
  opinion expressed by PW 5. The gravity of the injuries
  was also taken note of by the trial court and it had
  awarded the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT                 975

for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The A
High Court completely overlooked the various principles
regarding the scope and ambit of ss.482 and 320 Cr.P.C.,
and has committed a mistake in taking the view that, the
injuries were caused on the body of the injured in a fight
occurred at the spur and the heat of the moment. While B
exercising the power under Section 482, must have "due
 regard to the nature and gravity of the crime" and "the
 societal impact". Both these aspects were completely
 overlooked by the High Court. The High Court in a
 cursory manner, without application of mind, blindly c
 accepted the statement of the parties that they had
 settled their disputes and differences and took the view
 that it was a crime against "an individual", rather than
 against "the society at large". [Paras 12-14] [983-8-H;
 984-A]
                                                               D
       1.3. The High Court was carried away by the
  settlement and has not examined the matter on merits,
  hence, the High Court is directed to take back the appeal
  to its file and decide the appeal on merits. [Para 16] [984-
  G-H]                                                         E

     Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC
 303 2012 (8) SCR 753 - relied on.

      lshwar Singh vs. State of M.P. (2008) 1.5 SCC 667: ~008 F
 (14) SCR 574; Guiab Das and Ors. vs. State of Madhya
 Pradesh (2011) 10 SCC 765: 2011 (13) SCR 177; Rajendra
 Harakchand Bhandari and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and
 Anr. (2011) 13 SCC 311 - distinguished.
      2.1. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on G
 the ground of settlement between an offender and the
 victim is not the same thing as compounding of offences.
 The power of compounding of offences conferred on a
 Court under Section 320 CrPC is materially different from
 the power conferred under Section 482 for quashing of H
    976      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A criminal proceedings by the High Court. In compounding
  of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed
  by the provisions contained in Section 320 CrPC and the
  Court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the
  other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court
B for quashing a criminal proceeding or criminal complaint
  under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the material on
  record as to whether the ends of justice would justify
  such exercise of power, although the ultimate
  consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
C [Para 8] [981-C·E]

       2.2. The power of the High Court in quashing a
  criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
  inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
  power given to a criminal court for compounding the
D offences under Section 320 CrPC. The inherent power is
  of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has
  to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines
  engrafted in such power, namely, .(i) to secure the ends
  of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any ·
E court. While exercising the power of compounding the
  offence, the court must have due regard to the nature and
  gravity of the crime. [Para 9] [981 ·F·H]

                        Case Law Reference
F       2012 (8) SCR 753           relied on          Para 6
        2008 (14) SCR 574          distinguished      Para 10
        2011 (13) SCR 177          distinguished      Para 10
        (2011) 13 SCC 311          distinguished      Para 11
G       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 2018 of 2013.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2011 of the High
    Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRA No. 825 of 2009.
H       lrshad Ahmad for the Appellant.
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT                  977


   Vipin Kumar (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the A
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                               B
      2. Respondents herein were charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325, 427 read
with Section 34 IPC. They were tried before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Kola, Rajasthan.
From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined C
and Exh. P1- P12 were produced. From the side of defence,
second accused was examined as DW1 . The Sessions Court,
after hearing the parties and considering the oral and
documentary evidence, found the accused persons guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 0
IPC, but acquitted them of the rest of the charges, vide its order
dated 9.7.2009. Later, the accused persons were heard on
sentence, and they stated that they are not habitual criminals
and are aged 26 and 28 years, respectively. Further, it was
 pointed out that they are poor labourers i;narried and have E
 children. Further, it was also pointed out that the injuries were
 caused due to sudden provocation, and were not pre-
meditated. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, the
 trial Court, on sentence, passed the following order:

     "Heard both the parties. On the basis of the above F
     arguments, perused the case file. Though no criminal
     record has been produced by the Prosecution against the
     accused, nor has any arguments about the habitual
     criminal, however, from the evidence came on file, this fact
     has been established that accused Banwari and Shambhu G
     had been taking the goods on credit from the complainant
     Abdul Rashid, also on the day of incident, had come to take
     goods on credit and due to arrears of money, he had
      refused to give the goods on credit. Then they again came
      back at the place of incident. Thereafter about 10 minutes H
    978        SUPREME COU~T REPORTS                 [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A           both came with iron rod and a strip of iron like sword in a
           planned manner, and both together made a murderous
           attack on Abdul Rashid. By causing fatal injury on the head
           after fracture of piece of bone of head of Abdul Rashid,
           went inside the brain. The doctor performed the surgery
B          and taken out. Thereafter it cannot be said that the accused
           has injured in ignorance, suddenly on instigation and cause
           the said injury to Abdul Rashid and for committing the act
           by them, they have no intention or purpose for committing
           such act. Case under Section 307 IPC has been proved
c          against the accused beyond doubt. Therefore in this
          situation lenient view cannot be adopted against the
          accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has shown this intent
          in several cases that if the leniency is given to the accused,
          then the criminal people in the society will be encouraged.
          The accused had without any reason has injured the
D
          complainant sitting in his shop. This has been witnessed
          by other people of the society sitting in shop. Adopting
          lenient view with the accused, faith of the other people of
          the society will go from justice. In such situation, as per the
          direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused
E         are punished as under:

                        ORDER OF SENTENCE:

       Therefore accused Shambhu son of Babu Lal and
       accused Banwari lal son of Babu Lal Keva!, residents of
F
       Iqbal Chowk, Sakatpura, Kata are declared acquitted from
      the charge under Section 427 IPC and both the accused
      are convicted and are sentenced for 10-10 (Ten-Ten) years
      rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000-5000/- (Rupees
      five thousand only) for the charge under Section 307 read
G
      with Section 34 IPC. In the event of committing default in
      the payment of fine will face additional simple
      imprisonment of 3-3 months. The period spent in police/
      judicial custody by the accused will be adjusted in the
      period of original sentence under the provision of Section
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT                          979
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

    428 Cr.P.C. Warrant of sentence be prepared. Recovered               A
    property in the case, iron road and strip of iron like sword
    be destroyed after expiry of limitation of appeal as per
    directions. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the
    accused free of cost."
                                                                         B
     3. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the
accused persons approached the High Court by filing S.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2009. When the appeal came up
for hearing, on 16.11.2011, the complainant, Abdul Rashid who
was present in the court, stated that he and the accused
persons had entered into a compromise and, based on that                 C
compromise, he had received the compensation amount from
the accused persons for the injuries caused to him.
Consequently, it was pointed out that he did not wish to pursue
the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant
submitted before the High Court that since the parties had               D
 buried the differences and since offence committed was
 'against an individual', rather than 'against the State', no fruitful
 purpose would be served by keeping the accused persons
 behind the bars, and hence, it was requested that the case be
 compounded and the appeal be allowed.                                   E

      4. We have examined the reasons stated by the High Court
for acceding to that request. The High Court examined the
scope of Sections 482 and 320 CrPC and expressed the view
that there are certain similarities and differences between              F
compounding and quashing a case on the basis of compromise
and hence, quashing of a criminal proceeding upon a
compromise is well within the discretionary power of the Court.
It also opined that while the power under Section 320 CrPC is
cribbed, cabined and confined, the power under Section 482               G
CrPC is vast, unparallel and paramount. On facts the High Court
opined that it was a case where the fight between the parties
 had occurred on the spur and heat of the moment and the
 assault was more a crime 'against an individual', rather than
 'against the society at large'. The High Court held as follows:
                                                                         H
     980       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A          "In the present case, the fight occurred at the spur of the
           moment in the heat of the moment. According to the
           prosecution, both the sides were verbally fighting when
           alleged, the appellants struck Abdul Rashid (PW-3). The
           assault was more a crime against an individual than
B          against the society at large. Admittedly, both the parties
           have entered into a compromise. They have resolved their
           differences. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to
           allow the appeal."

         5. The High Court felt that since the parties had entered
C into a compromise and resolved their disputes and differences,
    it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal.
    Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the accused
    persons were acquitted of the offence under Sections 307 read
    with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been
D . preferred.

        6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that
   the High Court has completely misread and misunderstood the
   various principles laid down by this Court in Gian Singh v. State
E of Punjab and another (2012) 10         sec  regarding the scope
  and ambit of Sections 482 and 320 CrPC as well as the powers
  conferred on the criminal Court to quash criminal proceedings
  involved in a non-compoundable offence, in view of the
  compromise arrived at between the parties. The various
F guidelines laid down by this Court were also overlooked.
  Learned counsel also submitted that the High Court has also
  committed an error in holding that the offence which has been
  proved was merely an offence against an individual, rather than
  against the State. Learned counsel submitted that the Sessions
  Court had correctly noticed the nature of injuries and rightly
G came to the conclusion that the accused had committed injuries
  not due to sudden provocation, but it was a premeditated
  incident and that the trial Court has rightly awarded the
  sentence of 1O years rigorous imprisonment for the offence
  punishable under Section 307 IPC.
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT                        981
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
      7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the        A
other hand, contended that the parties had entered into a
compromise and, on the basis of the compromise, the accused
persons paid a substantial amount to the complainant for the
injuries caused to him and taking note of the fact that the alleged
crime was committed on the spur of the moment without pre-            B
meditation, the High Court was justified in compounding the
offence and acquitting the accused persons.
      8. We may point out that in Gian Singh (supra), this Court
has held that quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on C
the ground of settlement between an offender and the victim is
not the same thing as compounding of offences. This Court also
held that the power of compounding of offences conferred on
a Court under Section 320 CrPC is materially different from the
power conferred under Section 482 for quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court. In compounding of offences, D
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 CrPC and the Court is guided solely
 and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation
 of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding
 or criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the E
 material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify
 such exercise of power, although the ultimate consequence may
 be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

      9. The Court also opined that the power of the High Court F
in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 CrPC. This Court further opined
that the inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory G
limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the
 guidelines engrafted in such power, namely, (i) to secure the
 ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
 court. This Court also cautioned that while exercising the power
 of compounding the offence, the court must have due regard
 to the nature and gravity of the crime.                             H
    982      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A        10. We notice, in this case, admittedly, the offence
    committed under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable. In
    /sh war Singh v. State of M. P. (2008) 15 SCC 667, the accused
   was alleged to have ·committed an offence punishable under
    Section 307 IPC and, with reference to Section 320 CrPC, it
B was held that Section 307 was not a compoundable offence
   and there was express bar in Section 320 that no offence shall
   be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. In
   Guiab Das and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 10
   SCC 765, a different note was struck by this Court, but certain
c reasons for compounding the offence under Section 307 IPC
  were stated. In that case, this Court noticed that the incident
   had taken place in the year 1994 and the parties were related
   to each other. Both the accused persons, at the time of the
   incident, were in their 20's. Further, it was also noticed that a
  cross case was registered against the complainant also in
0
  which he was convicted and sentenced. Further, it was also
  noticed that the accused persons had also undergone certain
  period of sentence. The case which was settled between the
  parties, involved offences punishable under Section 325 read
  with Section 34 and also under Section 323 IPC. It was in such
E circumstances that the Court felt that the settlement arrived at
  between the parties was a sensible once so as to give quietus
  to the controversy. The Court while upholding the conviction,
  reduced the sentence awarded to the accused to the period
  they had already undergone.
F
       11. In Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. State
  of Maharashtra and another (2011) 13 SCC 311, this Court
  had an occasion to consider the question whether an offence
  under Section 307 IPC could be compounded in terms of the
G compromise reached at between the' parties. It was
  categorically held that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not
  compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) CrPC and that
  compounding of such an offence was out of question. Further,
  taking note of the fact that the incident had occurred in the year
H 1991 and it was almost 20 years since then, and that the
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHU KEWAT                       983
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
accused persons were agriculturists by occupation and had no          A
previous criminal background and there had been reconciliation
among the parties, the Court held that the ends of justice would
be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the accused be
reduced to the period already undergone.
                                                                      B
        12. We find, in this case, such a situation does not arise.
  In tlie instant case, the incident had occurred on 30.10.2008.
  The trial Court held that the accused persons, with common
  intention, went to the shop of the injured Abdul Rashid on that
. day armed with iron rod and a strip of iron and, in furtherance
  of their common intention, had caused serious injuries on the       C
   body of Abdul Rashid, of which injury number 4 was on his
   head, which was of a serious nature.

       13. Dr. Rakesh Sharma, PW5, had stated that out of the
 injuries caused to Abdul Rashid, injury no. 4 was an injury on D
 the head and that injury was "grievous and fatal for life". PW8,
 Dr. Uday Bhomik, also opined that a grievous injury was caused
 on the head of Abdul Rashid. Dr. Uday conducted the operation
 on injuries of Abdul Rashid as a Neuro Surgeon and fully
  supported the opinion expressed by PW 5 Dr. Rakesh Sharma E
 that injury no. 4 was "grievous and fatal for life".

      14. We notice that the gravity of the injuries was taken note
 of by the Sessions Court and it had awarded the sentence of
 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable F
 under Section 307 IPC, but not by the High Court. The High
 Court has completely overlooked the various principles laid
 down by this Court in Gian Singh (supra), and has committed
 a mistake in taking the view that, the injuries were caused on
 the body of Abdul Rashid in a fight occurred at the spur and
 the heat of the moment. It has been categorically held by this G
 Court in Gian Singh (supra) that the Court, while exercising the
 power under Section 482, must have "due regard to the nature
 and gravity of the crime" and "the societal impact". Both these
  aspects were completely overlooked by the High Court. The
  High Court in a cursory manner, without application of mind, H
     984      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.


 A   blindly accepted the statement of the parties that they had
     settled their disputes and differences and took the view that it
     was a crime against "an individual", rather than against "the
     society at large".

          15. We are not prepared to say that the crime alleged to
8
     have been committed by the accused persons was a crime
     against an individual, on the other hand it was a crime against
     the society at large. Criminal law is designed as a mechanism
     for achieving social control and its purpose is the regulation of
C conduct and activities within the society. Why Section 307 IPC
     is held to be non-compoundable, because the Code has ·
     identified which conduct should be brought within the ambit of
     non-compoundable offences. Such provisions are not meant,
    just to protect the individual, but the society as a whole. High
     Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury to the
D person and since the accused persons had received the
  · monetary compensation and settled the matter, the crime as
     against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a
    larger objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of the
    people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender,
E but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be
    committed by any one and money would not be a substitute for
    the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view
    on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong
    impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage
F further criminal acts, which will. endanger the peaceful co-
    existence and welfare of the society at large.

       16. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set
  aside the judgment of the High Court. The High Court was
G carried away by the settlement and has not examined the
  matter on merits, hence, we are inclined to direct the High Court
  to take back the appeal to its file and decide the appeal on
  merits. Let the High Court dispose of the ar;ipeal within six
  months. Ordered accordingly.

H K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.