In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, the boundaries of mediated settlement agreements for quashing First Information Reports (FIRs) in serious criminal cases have been emphasized.
HC Bench noted that the settlement of non-compoundable offenses through mediation agreements is not allowed, the Delhi High Court has issued a set of guidelines that must be adhered to by mediators in all mediation centers across the city.
Brief Facts:
In the case of CRL.M.C. 5720/2023, filed in the High Court of Delhi, the petitioners, represented by Mr. Mukesh Verma and Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocates, sought the quashing of FIR no. 358/2017 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi. The FIR had been lodged against the petitioners for alleged offences under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complainant, represented by Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the quashing of the FIR and asserted that on May 5, 2017, Bacchu Singh @ Veeru, who worked at a factory in Krishan Vihar, had assaulted the complainant. The incident had allegedly resulted in the complainant's injuries. As a consequence, the complainant's family filed a complaint, leading to the registration of FIR no. 358/2017. The complainant argued that the injuries sustained by him were on the frontal portion of the head and that the offence was serious and non-compoundable.
During the proceedings, a significant development occurred when the parties, with the intervention of their well-wishers and family members, reached a mediated settlement agreement. This agreement aimed to resolve the dispute amicably and had a bearing on the quashing of the FIR. The agreement specified that the matter had been settled for a sum of Rs. 40,000, to be paid as compensation to the injured complainant. An initial amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid in cash, and the remaining Rs. 30,000 was to be paid at the time of quashing the FIR. The settlement agreement further expressed the parties' commitment to cease any attempt to disturb each other and maintain a harmonious relationship.
Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that the FIR should be quashed in line with the mediated settlement agreement, highlighting their willingness to cooperate and abide by the terms of the settlement. The complainant, however, argued that the settlement could not override the legal provisions and principles governing quashing of FIRs, particularly for non-compoundable and serious offences. He maintained that such matters were subject to the discretion of the court and could not be automatically quashed solely based on a settlement agreement.
Observations by the Court:
However, the court highlighted the misconception that such mediated agreements automatically guarantee FIR quashing. The ruling emphasized that serious offences, particularly those that are non-compoundable, cannot be automatically quashed through the payment of money, regardless of any mediated agreement. The court stated that the decision to quash an FIR in such cases remains at the discretion of the court, based on established legal principles.
Justice Sharma's ruling elaborated on the inherent power of the court to prevent an abuse of the legal process or to ensure justice. It clarified that offences under Sections 384/397/394/376/377 and the POCSO Act, among others, being non-compoundable, cannot be settled solely through payment of money.
“The mediators at the end of mediated settlement agreement must mention in the cases as the present one i.e. non- compoundable cases where the parties want the FIR to be quashed in clear terms that quashing of the FIR is the discretion of the Court and the case being non- compoundable, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case FIR may or may not be quashed by the Court, it becomes relevant and important to do so in situations where both the parties have filed cases against each other and the agreement is based upon settlement that both will be withdrawing cases against each other.”
The court also stressed the need for clarity in mediation agreements, particularly in cases where cross-FIRs are involved, to avoid misleading parties about the likelihood of FIR quashing.
Decision of the Court:
Justice Sharma quashed the FIR but directed the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 each, which was ordered to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Employees Welfare Fund.
Case Name: ABHISHEK @ LOVE & ORS. v THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Coram: JUSTICE SWARANA KANTASHARMA
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 5720/2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Verma and Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocates
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
