Akash Mittal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6648 Del

$~35
*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+          CRL.M.C. 5614/2014
           AKASH MITTAL                                   ..... Petitioner
                        Through   Mr. Sanjeev Panda, Advocate with petitioner.
                                  .

                                  versus

           STATE OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS.           ..... Respondents
               Through   Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                         Head Constable Promod, P.S. Delhi Cantt.
                         ASI Prabhakarna.
                         Mr. D.K. Pane, Advocate with respondents 2, 3
                         and 4.

           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

           %            SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.19159/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.5614/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.458/2014 registered under Section 279, 337 IPC at police station Delhi Cantt. on 07.08.2014, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. D.K. Pane, Advocate for respondents 2, 3 and 4, enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant Ravi Garg, who is arrayed as respondent

No.2 to this petition; the injured Vishnu Prasad Sharma, who is arrayed as respondent No.4; and Mr. Rajkumar, who was the third occupant of the vehicle of the complainant and is respondent No.3, are present in person. They are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Head Constable Promod.

3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged as a consequence of a collision that had taken place with a Santo Car bearing No.HR-06Y- 2984 being driven by the complainant, Ravi Garg, where the third and fourth respondents were also seated, with a Honda City Car bearing No.UP- 14CH-0008, being driven by the petitioner Akash Mittal. The complainant's car was struck from behind at the Dhaula Kuan crossing, New Delhi, and appears to have been considerably damaged. The fourth respondent, Vishnu Prasad Sharma, also sustained injury in the collision on his forehead, which necessitated stitches.

4. It is stated that whilst the matter has been pending investigation, the petitioner approached respondents 2, 3 and 4 individually, and entered into separate settlements with each of them. Copies of the settlement Deeds have also been annexed to this petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in person in Court, states that the petitioner is a young man aged about 21 years, who is a Graduate in B.B.A. (Finance) from Indraprahastha University, Delhi, and his currently enrolled in M.B.A. course with Amity University; and that being a young man at the threshold of his career, any prosecution that may be launched, may result in an unnecessary stigma on him.

6. counsel further states that the petitioner is also accompanied by his father, who also assures this Court that he shall properly counsel the

petitioner and ensure that his son conducts himself more cautiously in future. He further offers to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3, and Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.4, by way of compensation.

7. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 accept this offer and state that they have settled all their disputes with the petitioner and have no grievance against him; and that they do not wish to proceed with the matter any further. The aforesaid amount has been handed over to respondents 2, 3 and 4 in cash in Court today.

8. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, including the fact that the petitioner is a young man who is engaged in pursuing professional courses; and since the complainant as well as the injured are no longer interested in supporting the investigation; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the same.

9. Under the circumstances, and looking to the decision 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 basis of a settlement 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 considered opinion that since the parties concerned in this matter have arrived at an amicable settlement, inter alia, by payment of the aforesaid compensation, which has been accepted by respondents 2, 3 and 4 and who have also expressed their disinclination to proceed with the matter any further; and since the petitioner, who seems to be genuinely remorseful, is at the threshold of his career, it is best to give a quietus to the matter at this stage itself.

10. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.458/2014 registered under Section 279, 337 IPC at police station Delhi Cantt., and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

11. The petition stands disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J DECEMBER 10, 2014 dr