Dr Vasdev Narang vs State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3973 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.M.C. 3681/2014

       DR VASDEV NARANG                                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through:             Mr. Pawan Kumar Mittal, Advocate

                          versus

       STATE & ANR                                        ..... Respondents
                          Through:      Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP with SI
                                        Rakesh Singh, PS Mandavli
                                        R-2 in person

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 12686/2014

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

CRL.M.C. 3681/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of FIR No. 77/2012 registered at Police Station Mandawli Fazad Pur, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State, as well as the complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 herein, is present in person and accepts notice. The investigation Officer present identifies the petitioner, as well as the second

respondent.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the complainant against the petitioner, Dr. Vasdev Narang, who happens to be the complainant's elder brother, alleging fabrication of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.12.2006 with a view to making a claim on certain family properties. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed a separate FIR bearing No. 165/2012 raising similar allegations against the complainant. After investigation, the police had filed a cancellation report in respect of the said FIR and which then prompted the petitioner to file a protest petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate. However, when the said protest petition was taken up for hearing on 06.05.2014, a statement was made by both parties that they have resolved their differences and are also intending to move this Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 77/2012, and therefore, the petitioner also seeks to withdraw the said protest petition in connection with his FIR No. 165/2012.

5. Counsel for the State submits that the chargesheet has been filed and the matter is now awaiting arguments on charge. He further states that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the matter concerns, a family dispute arising between brothers who have now amicably resolved their differences, and further since the complainant/respondent No. 2, is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings. He, however, submits that looking to the fact that the State machinery has been engaged by both parties for a considerable time in the matter, it would only be in the fitness of things if the parties are also obliged to pay costs in the matter.

6. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, is agreeable to this.

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 of the opinion that looking to the fact that looking to the fact that the matter has arisen out of a family dispute between brothers who have now resolved the issue amicably, it is best to give a quietus to the matter, especially when the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution thereby greatly reducing the chances of its success.

8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 77/2012 registered at Police Station Mandawli Fazad Pur, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject to the payment of Rs. 25,000/- to be borne equally

by the petitioner, as well as the complainant, to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi, within one week from today. Proof of deposit be filed in this Court within one week thereafter with a copy to the Investigating Officer.

9. The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) AUGUST 28, 2014 rd