Delhi High Court
Adiyta Gupta vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 20 August, 2014
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4228/2011
ADIYTA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Samar Bansal and Mr. Vinayak
Mehrotra, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public
Prosecutor
SI Naresh Sangwan, Crime Branch.
Mr. Vijay Nair, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.C. No.4228/2011 and Crl.M. A. No.9219/2013
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No.39/2008 dated 20.02.2008 registered at Police Station Economic Offence
Wing under Section 406 and 506 IPC on the ground that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties in terms of a settlement recorded before
the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 25.07.2011. A
copy of the Settlement Deed has been annexed to this petition.
2. It is pointed out that the chargesheet filed pursuant to the aforesaid
FIR also contained Sections 406, 506, 420, 468, 471 IPC.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr.
Vijay Nair, Advocate for respondent No.2, accept notice.
5. The third respondent, namely, Multivac International Pvt. Ltd., stated
to have been struck off the rolls of the Registrar of Companies, and is
therefore no longer in existence.
6. The Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Naresh Sangwan, is present.
7. It is pointed out that pursuant to certain disputes and differences
arisen between the petitioner and the complainant, both parties instituted
proceedings against each other. On the one hand, the complainants instituted
the aforesaid FIR and also filed a suit, being CS (OS) No.99/2009 claiming
a sum of Rs.50 lakhs along with interest from the petitioner, the petitioner,
on the other hand, not only filed a counter claim in that suit but also filed a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the
ground of the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.15 lakhs which was the subject
matter of the aforesaid FIR.
8. It is now stated that consequent upon the aforesaid mediation, the
parties have settled all their outstanding disputes, and the complaint by the
petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
second respondent as well as Mutlivac International Pvt. Ltd., stands
withdrawn. The aforesaid civil suit instituted by the complainant as well as
the counter claim lodged by the petitioner, also stand withdrawn by the
order of the Delhi High Court dated 29.07.2011. Further, looking to the
nature of the allegations that have arisen at one stage or the other in this case
and connected matters between the same parties; and also the relief sought
in the instant petition; counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that
the petitioner is also willing to pay any compensation by way of costs that
this Court may consider appropriate under the circumstances.
9. Counsel for the complainant states, on instructions, that the
complainant has no objection to a quietus being given to the matter since all
differences have amicably been settled, and the complainant does not have
any further grievance against the petitioner in respect of the said FIR.
10. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall
circumstances; and since it is a matter pertaining to property transactions
where the parties appear to have gotten involved in certain disputes which
have now been resolved; and where the complainant is no longer interested
in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with these proceedings since the chances of the petitioner being
convicted are diminished. He further submits that looking to the overall
circumstances, it would be in the fitness of thing if the petitioner is also
obliged to pay costs by way of compensation.
11. Under the circumstances, and 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 of the opinion that since the matter has been appropriately
resolved before the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre; and
since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution;
it would be appropriate that a quietus is given to these proceedings, subject
to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs with the Delhi High
Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social Security and Welfare Fund within
one week from today. Proof of deposit of the said amount be filed with the
Registry of this Court within one week thereafter, with a copy to the
Investigating Officer.
12. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR FIR No.39/2008 dated
20.02.2008 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing under
Section Sections 406, 506, 420, 468, 471 IPC, and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
13. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No.9219/2013, stands disposed off.
14. Dasti.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
AUGUST 20, 2014
dr
