Ajay Chugh & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3765 Del

$~33
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.M.C. 3616/2014

       AJAY CHUGH & ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                    Through:           Mr. Jiwan Pal Singh, Advocate for
                                       P-1 to 5
                          versus

       STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR                  ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP with SI
                              Yogendra, PS Gulabi Bagh
                              Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Adv. for
                              R-2 with R-2 in person

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that FIR No. 107/2013 registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh/Pratap Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, on 24.08.2013 and all proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second respondent, Kanika, who is also the complainant in the aforesaid FIR, enter appearance and accept notice. All the petitioners, as well as the complainant, are present. The Investigating Officer concerned is also present. He also recognises the petitioners, as well as the complainant.

4. It is alleged that the proceedings came to be initiated on the complaint of second respondent, who was married to petitioner No. 1, Ajay Chugh,

against all the petitioners. At the same time, a petition had also been moved by the complainant and the first petitioner under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent. This petition being HMA No. 1513/2014 came to be disposed off on 01.05.2014. In the said decision of the court below dated 01.05.2014 in HMA 1513/2014, the first petitioner, i.e., Shri Ajay Chugh, had undertaken to pay a total sum of Rs.7,70,000/- to the complainant towards all her claims and dues. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs is stated to be outstanding, which has been handed over to the complainant, in Court today. Certified copies of the relevant records of the family court in HMA 1513/2014 have also been annexed to the petition.

5. The complainant, who is present in Court today, affirms the aforesaid settlement which was recorded by the court below on 01.05.2014. She further submits that she does not wish to proceed with the matter any further, and has no objection to the FIR lodged by her, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, being quashed.

6. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the circumstances, and since it is matter arising out of a domestic dispute where the parties have now settled their disputes, and since the complainant herself is not willing to support the case thereby diminishing the chances of success, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the prosecution.

7. Looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in 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 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 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 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."

I am also of the opinion that the matter has arisen out of a domestic dispute, and has been amicably settled, inter alia, by obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent, which was recorded by the court below on 01.05.2014, and since the entire amount of Rs. 7,70,000/- envisaged under the aforesaid settlement has now been handed over to the complainant, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a quietus.

8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 107/2013 registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh/Pratap Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on 24.08.2013 and all proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

AUGUST 19, 2014 rd