Mukesh Kumar & Ors vs State Of Delhi & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3975 Del

$~3
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       CRL.M.C. 3188/2014

        MUKESH KUMAR & ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                   Through:             Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
                                        with petitioners in person

                           versus

        STATE OF DELHI & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                     Through:           Ms. Nishi Jain, APP with SI Ganga
                                        Pal, PS Civil Lines.
                                        R-2 in person

        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, seeks quashing of FIR No. 105/2010 dated 06.06.2010 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The complainant, Smt. Asha Rani, who is arrayed as the second respondent herein, is also present in person. The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Ganga Pal, Police Station Civil Lines, identifies the petitioners, as well as the complainant.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the complainant on the ground of certain matrimonial differences that have arisen after her marriage to the first petitioner, Mukesh Kumar. At the same time, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section

13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also moved by the first petitioner and the complainant, which has been allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on 10.09.2013.

5. It is further stated that in proceedings instituted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the complainant, the matter was referred to mediation in Execution No. 83/5/12 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and a settlement was recorded there between the parties on 21.01.2013 setting down all the terms and conditions. A certified copy of the same has also been annexed to this petition.

6. In terms of the aforesaid settlement, the complainant was to receive a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 towards all her claims out of which a balance of Rs.20,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of the aforesaid FIR by this Court. The complainant approbates the settlement and affirms the receipt of the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- in cash today. She also states that she has no further claims in the matter and has no objection to the proceedings being quashed.

7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties who have also obtained divorce by mutual consent and since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings.

8. 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."

I am of the opinion that the matter which has arisen primarily out of a domestic dispute where the complainant and the first petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, have also obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and have settled all their outstanding issues, it is best to give a quietus to the matter, especially where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution any further thereby reducing the chances of success of the prosecution.

9. Conse quently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 105/2010 dated 06.06.2010 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

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

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) AUGUST 28, 2014 rd