Ramesh & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3974 Del

$~4
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CRL.M.C. 3193/2014

         RAMESH & ORS.                                    ..... Petitioners
                 Through:            Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate

                            versus

         STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                    ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
                            with SI Shashi Dixit, PS Sunlight Colony
                            Mr. Shekhar Chand, Adv. for R-2
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been moved seeking quashing of FIR No. 123/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Sunlight Colony, Delhi, on the ground that the parties have settled the matter amicably.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2, enter appearance and accept notice.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed on account of disputes arising in connection with the marriage of the complainant, Kiran, with the first petitioner, Ramesh. Further, it is also stated that the said parties have in the meanwhile obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in HMA No. 258/2014 under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 03.03.2014. Before this, the parties have entered into a settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre of Saket on 22.07.2013 where the matter was referred by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a petition

moved by the complainant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In terms of the said settlement, the first petitioner had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- to the complainant. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- has already been received by the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been handed over to the complainant in Court today by way of a Demand Draft bearing No. 573530 dated 05.08.2014 drawn on Canara Bank, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

5. The complainant, who is present in person in Court, approbates the aforesaid settlement and states that she has now received the entire amount envisaged in the settlement and that she does not wish to continue with the proceedings any further.

6. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the matter has arisen primarily out of a domestic dispute in connection with the marriage of the complainant with the first petitioner and that the parties have also obtained a decree of divorce, and have amicably settled their disputes, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with these proceedings especially since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution any further.

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; 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."

To my mind, looking to the overall circumstances, since the matter concerns a domestic dispute which has been amicably settled where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution and where the chances of success of the prosecution are greatly diminished since the complainant is now not interested in supporting the prosecution, the matter deserves to be given a quietus.

8. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 123/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Sunlight Colony, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. The petition stands disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) AUGUST 28, 2014 rd