Delhi High Court

Raj Kapoor & Ors vs State & Anr on 25 August, 2014

            $~30 & 23
            * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
            + CRL.M.C. 3780/2014
              BAIL APPLN. 1864/2014

               RAJ KAPOOR & ORS                                     ..... Petitioner
                            Through:              Mr. Kapil Yadav, and Mr. Nikhil
                                                  Yadav, Advocates.

                                     versus
               STATE & ANR                                          ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. O. P.Saxena, APP for the State with SI Pardeep PS Anand Parbat.

Smt. Babita, second respondent/ complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J (ORAL)

Crl. M.A.12979/2014 (for exemption) in Crl. M.C.3780/2014 Crl. M.A. 12962/2014 (for exemption) in Bail Appln. 1864/2014

Exemption applications, as prayed for, are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed off.

Crl. M.C. No.3780/2014 Bail Appln. 1864/2014

1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of FIR No. 131/2013 registered under Section 323/324/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Anand Parbat on 30.07.2013 at the instance of the complainant Smt. Babita on the ground that the petitioners, as well as the complainant, who is arrayed as the second respondent in the matter, have amicably resolved the disputes amongst themselves.

2. At the same time, bail application No.1864/2014 has been moved

by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the same FIR.

3. It is stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, hence aforesaid FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. Issue notice.

5. Counsel for the State, as well as the second respondent/complainant Smt. Babita, in the petition as well as in the bail application enter appearance and accept notice.

6. Counsel for the State submits that the matter is at the stage of investigation and the chargesheet is yet to be filed.

7. Both the petitioners and the second respondent are also present in person. They are also identified by the Investigating Officer/SI Pardeep Kumar, Police Station Anand Parbat.

8. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is primarily a domestic dispute that has arisen between the complainant's niece, Kamlesh and her husband Mr. Raj Kumar, who is first petitioner herein on 29.07.2013. In this altercation, the complainant and the petitioners, as well as Kamlesh and Anurag, who is stated to be minor son of Kamlesh, were also injured. Kamlesh in turn is stated to be sister-in-law of the complainant.

9. It is further stated that all the parties i.e. the complainant, the accused, as well as the injured are related to each other and live in the same locality. Kamlesh as well as the complainant, Smt. Babita, are both present in Court today, and state that they do not wish to continue with the proceedings and also pray that the matter be closed.

10. Counsel for the State states that looking to the overall circumstances, and keeping in mind the fact that the matter primarily concerns a domestic 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.

11. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are willing to pay any compensation by way of costs as may be directed by this Court.

12. 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."

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 considered opinion that, since the matter is arising out of a domestic discord amongst the parties who are related to each other, and are living in the same locality; and keeping in view the fact that the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves; and that the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, which is at the stage of investigation, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings. I am also of the opinion that under the circumstances, it is best if a quietus is given to the matter, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.4000/- each with the Advocates' Welfare fund of the Bar Council of Delhi within two weeks from today. Proof of deposit to be filed in this Court with copy to the Investigating Officer within the same time.

13. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 131/2013 registered under Section 323/324/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Anand Parbat, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

14. Since the aforesaid FIR No.131/2013 Police Stat ion Anand Parbat has been quashed, counsel for the petitioners does not wish to press the bail application no.1864/2014, which is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.