$~ 9 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 06, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 1014/2014
ABHIPRA CAPITAL LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rahul Gupta, Mr. S. Tabrez
and Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rakesh
Mr.Shekhar Das, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 1015/2014
ABHIPRA CAPITAL LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rahul Gupta, Mr. S. Tabrez
and Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rakesh
Mr.Shekhar Das, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 1
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL) In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of two FIRs i.e. FIR No.829/2006 [in CRL.M.C.1014/2014] and FIR No.825/2006 [in CRL.M.C. 1015/2014] both under Sections 406/420/409/506/120-B/34 of IPC and registered at police station Kingsway Camp/Model Town (investigated by E.O.W.), Delhi, is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 14th February, 2014 (Annexure-3 colly.) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.
Since the quashing in these petitions is sought on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of.
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Shekhar Das, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-complainants.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondents No.2-complainants of the FIRs question are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so by their counsel as well as by SI Rakesh on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the investigation of this case is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioners has placed on record copy of CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 2 charge-sheet of these two FIRs, which does indicate that the offences under Sections 467/468/471/477-A of IPC have been added. However, on a bare perusal of the charge-sheet of this case and the status report filed, this Court finds that the allegations of forgery, etc., are not substantiated.
Respondents-complainants-Yogesh Kumar and Anand Kumar, present in the Court, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondents No.2-complainants affirm the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and of their affidavit of 16th February, 2014 supporting this petition and submit that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
In „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 3 recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1 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. 29.2. 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.
29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the 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 CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 4 on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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.
29.5. 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.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 5 and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter 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.
29.7. 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 to 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."
CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 6 In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding, affidavits of respondents No.2- complainants, the status report and the material on record, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, these two petitions are allowed subject to cost of `1 lac per petition to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR No.829/2006 [in CRL.M.C.1014/2014] and FIR No.825/2006 [in CRL.M.C. 1015/2014] both under Sections 406/420/409/506/120-B/34 of IPC and registered at police station Kingsway Camp/Model Town (investigated by E.O.W.), Delhi, and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 06, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 1014 & 1015 of 2014 Page 7