Naimuddin & Ors vs State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3783 Del

$~33 & 35
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.M.C. 3657/2014

       NAIMUDDIN & ORS                                    ..... Petitioners
                    Through:           Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate

                            versus
       STATE & ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                            Through:   Ms. Nishi Jain, APP with ASI Ratan
                                       Lal, PS Malviya Nagar

+      CRL.M.C. 3622/2014

       SUJAUDDIN & ORS                                    ..... Petitioners
                    Through:           Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate

                            versus
       STATE & ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                            Through:   Ms. Nishi Jain, APP with ASI Ratan
                                       Lal, PS Malviya Nagar

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 12596/2014 IN CRL.M.C. 3657/2014

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off.

CRL.M.C. 3657/2014 & CRL.M.A. 12597/2014 CRL.M.C. 3622/2014 & CRL.M.A. 12516/2014

1. These two petitions have been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of two cross FIRs that were filed by the concerned parties against each other. The particulars of the

FIRs are as follows:

(i) FIR No. 878/2014 was filed under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC by Shri Sujauddin against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 3657/2014.

(ii) FIR No. 880/2014 was filed under Sections 323/451/506/34 IPC by Shri Naimuddin against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 3622/2014.

Both the FIRs have been registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainants accept notice. Both the complainants in the aforesaid FIRs, namely, Naimuddin and Sujauddin, are also present in person. They are identified by the Investigating Officer, ASI Ratan Lal, Police Station Malviya Nagar, as well as by counsel for the petitioners.

4. It is stated that the Memorandum of Understanding has been arrived at between the parties on 03.08.2014 whereby both the parties have settled the matter and agreed not to pursue their respective complaints against each other. It is also stated that the parties are related to each other being cousins and they also carry on business in the same market adjacent to each other, and that the dispute arose out of affixation of a signboard.

5. Counsel for the petitioners also states, on instructions from the petitioners, who are also present in Court today, that they are also willing to pay any appropriate costs in the matter.

6. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the circumstances, where the parties are related to each other and are also carrying on business from adjacent premises, and where the complainants are not interested in supporting the prosecution, the chances of success are greatly reduced, and therefore, it would be best to give a closure to the matter.

7. 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 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."

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 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 interest of justice would be best served if a quietus is given to the matter, especially since the parties involved are cousins who are carrying on business from adjacent premises and the dispute escalated out of a petty quarrel over the affixation of a Board and which has ultimately resulted in simple injuries to both sides, and more so, when the complainants are not interested in supporting the prosecution any further and have settled the matter amongst themselves, subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/- by each group of petitioners with the Advocates Welfare Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi within two weeks from today. The proof of deposit shall be filed with the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter with a copy to the Investigating Officer concerned.

8. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the aforesaid two FIRs being FIR No. 878/2014 under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC by Shri Sujauddin against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 3657/2014, and FIR No. 880/2014 registered under Sections 323/451/506/34 IPC by Shri Naimuddin against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 3622/2014, both registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. The petitions stand disposed off.

10. Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

AUGUST 20, 2014 rd