Rajeev Bakshi vs State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3952 Del

$~6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 3511/2014

      RAJEEV BAKSHI                            ..... Petitioner
          Through   Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocate.

                         versus

      STATE & ORS                                 ..... Respondents
          Through        Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                         Mr. Soayib Qureshi and Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj,
                         Advocate for R 2 to 5.
                         ASI Gireesh Kumar PS Malviya Nagar.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%     SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.12128/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.3511/2014

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed that FIR No.472/2014 dated 28.04.2014 registered under Sections 285, 338 IPC at police station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, against the petitioner and all other proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the legal representatives of the deceased Kali Charan, Praveen and Surender Kumar. All of whom are stated to have died in hospital after sustaining injuries at the godown of the petitioner.

Issue notice.

Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Soayib Qureshi and Mr. Vishal Bharwaj, Advocates for respondents 2 to 5, enter appearance and accept notice.

It is alleged that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 28.04.2014 at the instance of Kali Charan stating that he along with other two associates, namely, Surinder and Praveen had gone to the factory of the accused at A-14/2, Panscheel Vihar, Malviya Nagar, where the godown of the petitioner is located and the owner of the godown is Dinesh Chauhan. The complainant heard a sound of a blast and also saw that the godown was on fire and complainant along with his two associates suffered burn injuries and had admitted to Safdarjung Hospital by PCR for treatment. Ultimately all the three succumbed to injuries on 03.05.2014. It is also stated that the petitioner has settled the matter with the respondents who are stated to be the relatives and legal representatives of the deceased for a total sum of Rs.10 lacs. A compromise deed dated 25.07.2014 between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has also been annexed to this petition stating this fact. Settlement deed has also been signed by the said respondents. The said respondents are present in the Court and proof of their identification have also been annexed with the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the above demand drafts, the draft in the name of Sh. Ravi Kumar for Rs.3 lacs has been prepared in view of the fact that respondent no.2 Smt. Rama Devi does not have an account of her own and that Sh. Ravi Kumar is her son. In this context, counsel for the complainants has also handed over an affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kumar stating that he has received the said sum of Rs.3 lacs on behalf of his mother Smt. Rama Devi, respondent no.2 herein, and that this amount shall not be misused by him and that he undertakes to pay the sum

to his mother as and when required by her. An affidavit of Rama Devi approbating this fact has also been handed over and taken on record.

Counsel for the petitioner has handed over the following demand drafts to the said respondents, in the Court today.

   S.No.      DD No.   Dated           Drawn on         In sum of Rs.         In favour of
       1. 1 484825     01.08.2014 Indian Bank, Saket,   Rs.3,00,000/-   Mrs. Bhu Devi , wife of
            1                            Delhi                          deceased Surinder

       2.   484826     01.08.2014 Indian Bank, Saket,   Rs.1,00,000/-   Ms. Akancha Devi,
                                         Delhi                          daughter of deceased
                                                                        Kali Charan.
       3.   484824     01.08.2014 Indian Bank, Saket,   Rs.3,00,000/-   Mr. Ravi Kumar, son of
                                         Delhi                          deceased Kali Charan
       4.   484823     01.08.2014 Indian Bank, Saket,   Rs.3,00,000/-   Mrs. Seema, wife of
                                         Delhi                          deceased Praveen

The petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are present and they

are identified by the Investigating Officer ASI Gireesh Kumar. The said

respondents approbate the terms and conditions of the settlement and join

the petitioner in the prayer that the FIR be quashed.

Counsel for the State submits that the matter is at the stage of

investigation, and since the parties have entered into an amicable settlement,

no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

Consequently, 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."

I am of the opinion that it is best if a quietus is given to the matter since the same has been settled by payment of compensation to the aforesaid

legal representatives of the deceased Kali Charan, Surender and Praveen, none of whom are now interested in supporting the prosecution any further.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.472/2014 dated 28/04.2014 registered under Sections 285, 338 IPC at police station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

The petition stands disposed off.

Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge AUGUST 27, 2014 An