Delhi High Court
Ranvir Singh vs The State & Anr on 19 August, 2014
$~20, 29, 41 & 42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1276/2014
SURINDER BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Mr. Sandeep
Guraniya & Mr. Aditya, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Raj
Kumar, PS Baba Hari Das Nagar
+ CRL.M.C. 3469/2014
POONAM BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Mr. Sandeep
Guraniya & Mr. Aditya, Advocates
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Raj
Kumar, PS Baba Hari Das Nagar
+ CRL.M.C. 3473/2014
RANVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Raj Kumar, PS Baba Hari
Das Nagar
Mr. Y.P. Singh, Mr. Sandeep
Guraniya & Mr. Aditya, Adv. for R-2
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 1 of 8
+ BAIL APPLN. 908/2014
POONAM BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Mr. Sandeep
Guraniya & Mr. Aditya, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Raj
Kumar, PS Baba Hari Das Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
1. Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 & 1276/2014 are two bail
applications moved by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and Shri Surender Bhardwaj
respectively. In addition, Crl.M.C. 3473/2014 has been moved by Shri
Ranveer Singh, who is the accused in FIR No. 154.2014 that was registered
at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar on 19.03.2014 under Section 354
IPC at the instance of Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj. At the same time, Crl.M.C.
No. 3469/2014 had been instituted by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and her
husband, Shri Surender Bhardwaj, who are the accused in FIR No. 155/2014
registered at the instance of Shri Ranveer Singh under Sections
186/332/34/353 IPC on 19.03.2014 at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar.
Both these petitions also seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR Nos. 154/2014
and 155/2014.
2. In substance, all the aforesaid parties concerned are stated to have
settled the matter amicably amongst themselves and now they jointly pray
for the said FIR Nos. 154/2014 and 155/2014, and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, be quashed.
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
3. The aforesaid Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 and 1276/2014 were
also taken up on 17.07.2014 where also the statements of all counsel
including counsel for the complainant, as well as the State, to the effect that
both the matters have been settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that
the complainants in both the FIRs do not desire to press the matter any
further or to continue with the prosecution, have been recorded.
4. Today, counsel for the respondents in Crl.M.C. 3473/2014 and
3469/2014, enter appearance and accept notice.
5. Counsel for all the parties involved are present today and have
reiterated the position that the complainants in these matters have settled the
matter to their satisfaction, and are no longer interested in pursuing the
matter any further. They jointly pray that the said FIRs be, therefore,
quashed.
6. Counsel appearing for the State submits that the matters are still
under investigation and further that no useful purpose would be served in
continuing with the investigation since the complainants themselves are not
interested in pursuing the matter, and therefore, the chances of success of
the prosecution, if lodged, are minimum. A settlement deed dated
15.07.2014 has been executed between Smt. Poonam Bharadwaj, w/o Shri
Surender Bhardwaj, Surender Bhardwaj, s/o Shri J.P. Bhardwaj and
husband of Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj, and Shri Ranvir Singh, Executive
Engineer (Building) SDMC, Main Zonal Building, Dhansa Stand,
Nazafgarh, New Delhi, all of whom are arrayed as parties to these petitions
in respect of their respective complaints against each other. A photocopy of
the said settlement deed has also been annexed to this petition. All the
parties are also present in person. They are also identified by their counsel
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
as well as the Investigating Officer.
7. Both the complainants also state that they are not interested in
continuing with the proceedings and they have reached an amicable
settlement. They further state that the FIRs came to be filed in the heat of
the moment and due to some misunderstanding between the parties and they
have resolved the matter amongst themselves.
8. Counsel for the State also submits that all the parties are responsible
citizens and have now decided to amicably resolve all issues and further
since the complainants in both the FIRs are not interested in supporting the
prosecution, the likelihood of eventual success is very little.
9. Looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters
for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be
quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and
the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; and also Narinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC) where the
Supreme Court held as follows:-
"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
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
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 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.
29.4 On the other hand, 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.
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
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
29.6 Offences under Section 307 Indian Penal Code
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 Indian
Penal Code 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 307Indian Penal
Code 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 Indian
Penal Code. 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.
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
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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."
And the judgment of this Court in Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr.
in Crl. M.C. No. 6621-24/2006 decided on 3rd September, 2007, wherein it
was, inter alia, held as under:-
"14. .......Peace has been brought in the locality
with the intervention of the well wishers of the
locality. When there is peace in locality, there will
be peace in the town. When there is peace in
town, there will be peace in city. When there is
peace in city, there will be peace in State. When
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
there is peace in State, there will be peace in
country.....
15. The petition is according allowed. FIR
No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police
station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all
consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also
ordered to be dropped."
I am also of the view that the matters deserve to be given a quietus
since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and both the
complainants are now not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby
diminishing the chances of prosecution succeeding in the matter.
10. Under the circumstances, both the petitions, being Crl.M.C. No. 3469
& 3473/2014 are allowed, and FIR No. 154.2014 that was registered at
Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar on 19.03.2014 under Section 354 IPC
at the instance of Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj, as well as FIR No. 155/2014
registered at the instance of Shri Ranveer Singh under Sections
186/332/34/353 IPC on 19.03.2014 at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar,
along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
11. In the light of the aforesaid orders, Bail Application No. 908/2014
and 1276/2014 are dismissed as not pressed.
12. All the matters stand disposed off accordingly.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
AUGUST 19, 2014
rd
Bail Appln. Nos. 1276 & 908/2014
