* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4890/2014
Date of Decision: March 04th, 2016
HUKAMDIN @ CHOTE LAL & ORS
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nisha, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Om Prakash, Police Station
Badarpur, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Hukamdin @ Chote Lal, Ms. Hasina, Shakti Arora @ Babbu @ Bobi and Fakruddin for quashing of FIR No.137/2013 dated 22.04.2013, under Sections 308/452/34 IPC registered at Police Station Badarpur on the basis of the settlement agreement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 7, namely, Sh. Abdul Hanif, Abdul Rehman, Smt. Hasanjadi, Sh. Lajja Ram, Smt. Lambo Devi @ Prem Devi and Sh. Pappu, Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 1 of 9 respectively, on 10.09.2014.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant and respondent nos. 3 to 7 have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by their counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that on 21.04.2013 at about 10 pm, Fakru, Kallu @ Mohd. Asif, Hasina and Chhotu Khan @ Kumuddin who is the brother of Hasina and Bablu @ Bobi came near his jhuggi with lathis and started shouting and abusing loudly. They all then attacked the complainant with danda on his head. Then, Kallu @ Mohd. Asif attacked the brother of the complainant namely Abdul Rehman and Hasina attacked his bhabhi namely Hasanjadi with danda. After listening to voices, Lajjaram, Lambo Devi and Pappu also came there. On that, Hasina attacked Lambo Devi with danda and Chhotu Khan @ Hukmuddin gave a deadly blow with danda to Pappu. Bablu @ Bobi attacked Lajjaram with danda on his head and Kallu gave head blow with danda to Lajjaram. Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 2 of 9
The respondent no.2/complainant lodged the FIR in question. The police officials filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners entered into a settlement agreement with Pappu, Hansraj, Happy @ Karamvir, Abdul Rehman @ Abdul and Abdul Haneef.
4. Respondent No.2 to 7 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of family and friends/relatives. As per the settlement, it is agreed that the petitioners shall withdraw their complaint against Sh. Pappu, Hansraj, Happy, Sh. Abdul Hanif and Abdul Rehman (party to compromise called as 'second party') and shall cooperate in quashing the FIR No.136/2013 pending against Sh. Pappu, Hansraj, Happy, Sh. Abdul Hanif and Abdul Rehman. The second party also agreed to withdraw their complaint against the petitioners and shall cooperate in quashing of the FIR in question. Smt. Hasanjadi, Sh. Lajja Ram and Kajal have also given their consent for the aforesaid compromise and for quashing of both the FIRs. Both the parties have no claim in respect of the aforesaid cases/complaints and both the parties undertake that they will not write to any authority in connection with Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 3 of 9 or against the other party on any account. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their individual affidavits dated 16.10.2014 supporting this petition. As per the affidavits filed by respondent nos.2 to 7, they have settled all their disputes with the petitioners and have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statements of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners and have settled all the disputes with them. They further stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. 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 Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 4 of 9 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."
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant 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 Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 5 of 9 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 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent nos.2 to 7 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and have stated that the matter has been settled out of their own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 6 of 9 of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 7 of 9 affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable.
Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 8 of 9
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offences under Sections 308/452 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statements made by the respondent Nos.2 to 7, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.137/2013 dated 22.04.2013, under Sections 308/452/34 IPC registered at Police Station Badarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 04, 2016 dd Crl.M.C. 4890/2014 Page 9 of 9