Supreme Court issues fresh guidelines on quashing of proceedings of a non-compoundable offence on the basis of settlement between the parties.

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.

It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.

Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.

Delhi High Court Exempts Medical Reimbursement of Supreme Court Judges From RTI

The Delhi High court on December 19 held that reimbursement of medical expenses of the Supreme Court Judges (whether serving or retired) has been exempted from the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005.

The court said that this information does not serve any public interest and Central Information Commission (CIC) was in error to direct Central Public Information Officer of Supreme Court (CPIO) to record the reimbursement of medical bills of the Supreme Court Judges separately for each Judge to ensure that the summary of the expenses for each judges are available separately overlooking that medical bills can lead to the disclosure of the disease which is invasion of once privacy and personal information.

On 25.10.2010 Subhash Chandra Agarwal had filed an application under RTI Act asking about the details of the expenses of last three years spent on RTI the individual Judges (including of their family member) on Private treatment in India or abroad.

This application was transferred to the CPIO under Section 6(3) of the Act and CIPO rejected the application on the ground that personal information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.

In 2007 the respondent appealed before CIC challenging order of the FFA and CIC directed CPIO to provide with the information.

Currently the Court held that information relating to the medical records would be personal information therefore it is exempt from the disclosure under Section (1) (j) of the Act. The medical bills would eventually indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly invasion of the privacy.

Welcome Supreme Court judgement on making ‘In-House’ proceedings against judges public: Supreme Court should urgently decide its own cases against CIC-verdicts

It refers to welcome Supreme Court verdict directing Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court to divest a judge of that court, accused of sexually harassing a woman subordinate court judge of Gwalior from undertaking administrative and supervisory functions. Elaborative verdict further opens a new door to transparency when it made in-house proceedings in the matter public in order to address concerns of institutional integrity and sustain the public confidence. But there has been a contradictory verdict of a High Court in some such similar matter of allegations of sexual harassment by an intern against her earlier boss which happened to be a judge in the highest court. Present Supreme Court verdict should be applicable in that case also. It is otherwise also unfair and unjustified that similar allegations were levelled against two retired judges of Supreme Court where two matters were handled differently even at the Supreme Court.

A stay-order from Supreme Court on many aspects concerning transparency in administrative side of judicial system is pending for last so many years which also includes aspect of ‘In-House’ proceedings against judges of higher courts. Successive Chief Justices of India have deferred constituting a larger bench at the Apex Court to hear the long-pending matters when a Division Bench of the Apex Court on 26.11.2010 directed its registry to place the matter before Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench to decide matters decided or pending at Central Information Commission (CIC). Long-pending matter has resulted in deferment of CIC-hearings in many such matters. Stay-order has become meaningless practically when controversies like Gopal Subramanian not made judge at Supreme Court, and former Supreme Court judge Markendey Katju exposing politicians in interfering in appointment of judges of higher courts.

It is time that larger bench may be immediately constituted at Supreme Court to decide SLP(C) numbers 32855 & 32856 of 2009 against CIC-verdicts dated 24.11.2009 in a fast-track manner.