Decisions give guidance on handling of criminal cases

In two recent cases the Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance to criminal courts across the country.

Resolution via compromise

In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors v State of Punjab & Anr, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a first information report (FIR) can be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), pursuant to a compromise in a matter involving the commission of a heinous crime and where the victim suffered serious injuries. The court was considering a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court which had held that an attempt to commit murder under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was incapable of being compounded (i.e. resolved through a settlement) and there could be no acquittal on the basis of such a compromise.

The Supreme Court held that the powers under section 482 are wide enough to provide for an acquittal pursuant to a compromise even in such cases. Its conclusion was based on the following factors: (a) when parties arrive at a compromise in relation to non-compoundable offences, compounding is permissible but requires the approval of the court; (b) the power conferred under section 482 of the CrPC is to be distinguished from the power which lies with the high court to compound offences under section 320 of the CrPC; (c) the power under section 482 is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the CrPC for redressal of the grievance; (d) the guiding factors in quashing criminal proceedings where parties have reached a settlement are to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any court; (e) ordinarily the power is not to be exercised in prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; (f) even though offences under section 307 are heinous, the court cannot rest its decision merely on a mention of section 307 in the FIR but should examine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the offence; (g) the timing of the settlement plays a crucial role in the court’s decision whether to exercise its power under the CrPC.

This decision yet again demonstrates that the court’s powers under section 482 of the CrPC are wide and extraordinary and are capable of covering diverse matters as was held in State of Haryana & Ors v Bhajanlal & Ors (1990), Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr (2008) and Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr (2010).

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]

Negotiable Instruments Act

While recently deciding the matter of Indian Bank Association & Ors v Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines in relation to timely disposal of complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:

“(1) Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

(2) MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken.

(3) Court may indicate in the summons that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

(4) Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251 CrPC to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re-calling a witness for cross-examination.

(5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court.”

The Supreme Court has now directed all criminal courts in the country to follow the above-mentioned procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

[/ihc-hide-content]

Vivek Vashi is the mainstay of the litigation team at Bharucha & Partners, where Nandini Singh is a senior associate.