Delhi High Court
Rajesh Verma & Anr vs State & Anr on 21 August, 2014
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3648/2014
RAJESH VERMA & ANR
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shalabh Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State
ASI Suresh Chand, PS Sarita Vihar.
Mr. Vikram Gujral, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.C. No.3648/2014 & Crl. M.A. No.12566/2014 (for stay)
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has been moved by the petitioners seeking
quashing of FIR No.82/2013 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC
registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar, Delhi, and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has
been settled between the parties.
Issue notice.
Counsel for the State as well as counsel for second
respondent Anu Verma, who is complainant, accept notice.
It is the case of the parties that the aforesaid FIR came to be
registered by the complainant Anu Verma against her husband
Rajesh Verma, who is arrayed as petitioner no.1; as well as
Smt. Rashmi Verma, who is arrayed as petitioner no.2 and is
complainant's sister-in-law; and her late father-in-law Dharampal
Verma, who is stated to have died on 16.05.2013; with regard to
certain marital disputes.
The matter is stated to be under investigation and
chargesheet is yet to be filed. At the same time, the first petitioner,
Rajesh Verma has also instituted a petition before the Family Court
under Section 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against
the complainant/respondent no.2 seeking dissolution of marriage
being HMA no.1080/2013. In that matter, orders on the First
Motion petition have been passed on 22.10.2013. At the same time
while considering an anticipatory bail application moved by the
petitioners in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the matter was
referred by the court below to the Mediation Centre, Saket Court,
New Delhi. Consequently, with the assistance of the Mediator, a
negotiated settlement was arrived at between the parties, the terms
and conditions whereof are set down in the copy of the proceedings
of 27.08.2013 that has been annexed at page 45 of the petition.
Counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant submit
that all the terms mentioned in that
Settlement have been carried out and now, out of an agreed amount
of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, remains to be paid by
the petitioners to the second respondent/complainant; and as
agreed, a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs has been handed over by the
petitioner to the complainant in Court today; thus leaving a balance
amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be paid to the complainant on the date
of passing of the orders by the Family court on the Second Motion
petition for divorce moved jointly by the parties on 20.08.2014.
The complainant is also present in person. She is identified
by the Investigating Officer as well as her counsel. The
complainant states that she does not wish to pursue the matter any
further, and that the FIR in question be quashed as prayed; she
further undertakes to go through with the Second Motion Petition
and to give appropriate statements before the Family Court
whenever required for this purpose, subject, of course, to the
petitioners paying the balance amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs as aforesaid,
before the Family Court on that date.
Counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 states that the
Joint Second Motion Petition has been filed by them before the
Family Court on 20.08.2014. Both counsel further state that their
clients will take all steps necessary to secure appropriate orders
dissolving the marriage of the first petitioner and the second
respondent and effectuating the aforesaid Settlement recorded on
27.08.2014 before the Mediation Centre.
The statement of parties is accepted by this Court, and they
shall remain bound by the same.
Counsel for the State submits that under the circumstances,
and keeping in mind the fact that the matter primarily concerns a
family dispute, where the complainant is not interested in
supporting the prosecution and which is at the stage of
investigation, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with
the proceedings.
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; by observing as under:
"58. ....However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour
having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating
to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and the offender and the victim
have settled all disputes between them amicably,
irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been
made compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted
and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice
shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
And also in 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."
Crl. M.C.3648/2014 Page 7of 8
I am also of the opinion that under the circumstances, it is
best if a quietus is given to the matter, especially since the matter has
arisen primarily out of a domestic dispute, where all the parties
concerned have settled amicably.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.82/2013
under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sarita
Vihar, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby
quashed.
The petition along with Crl. M. A. No.12566/2014 (for stay)
stand disposed off accordingly.
Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the
Court Master.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 21, 2014
An
