Case :- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal
Court :- The Supreme Court of India
Citation :- (2015) 7 SCC 681
Petitioner :- State of Madhya Pradesh
Respondent :- Madanlal
Judges :- Justice Dipak Mishra, Justice Prafulla C Pant
Facts of the Case
On 27.12.2008, the victim aged 7 years was proceeding towards her mother from her home. On the way the accused Madanlal met her and came to know that she was going in search of her mother who went to graze goats. The accused told her that her mother went to the river and took her to the river. He removed her undergarments and raped her. The victim in pain cried and the mother of the victim who heard the cry came to the place and the accused ran away from there. The victim narrated the incident to her mother and the mother lodged the FIR for the victim. Investigation took place and evidence including scientific evidence were collected and the charge sheet submitted to the Magistrate who committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.
The accused pleaded innocence and after going through the evidence and trial, the Court convicted him under Section 376(2) (f) read with section 511 of IPC and sentenced him to jail with rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The accused appealed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the counsel for accused contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and the mother of the victim had filed an application in the trial court stating that they entered into a compromise with the accused and the case should be dismissed. The trial court did not consider the application stating that the offence is non-compoundable. The High Court under s 482 CrPC after that converted the offence to S 354 IPC and confined the sentence to the period of custody already undergone. The State had appealed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court in way of Special Leave Petition.
Issue in the Case
Whether the decision of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is legally acceptable?
Decision of the Case
After going through the judgment of the trial court and the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had not perused all the evidence before it and that the Court did not satisfy the requirements of the appellate court. The court pointed out the painful and repetitive manner in which many appellate judges act in contrary to the precedents and against the normal mandate of law. The Court in this case states that the High Court is having wide powers under S 482 of CrPC which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to meet the ends of justice and the Supreme Court pointed out that this power should be used with great diligence and care.
The Court also held that a compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment is to be awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable offence against the society and is not a matter to be left to the parties to compromise and settle. The Court stated that rape like crimes against the body of women which is her own temple and reputation is richest jewel one can conceive in life. There cannot be any settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. The court thus allowed the appeal and held that the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for reappraisal of evidence and for fresh decision and the accused to be taken into custody forthwith.
Analysis of the Case
Section 482 CrPC states – Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In the landmark case, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail the provisions of section 482 of CrPC and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court the laid down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint or FIR:
1.Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2.Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3.Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, held that the High Courts while exercising the power under S 482 of CrPC should keep in mind that it should be used to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of processes of law.
In Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat ( Crl Appeal No 1723 of 2017) the Supreme Court while considering an appeal on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court on dismissing the plea for quashing of processes under S 482 CrPC held that while exercising this power and while dealing with a plea regarding the settlement of dispute between the parties the Court must give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Offences like murder, rape and dacoity or offences which cause mental depravity cannot be quashed even though the dispute has been settled between the parties.
