Shaily Goel & Anr vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 6867 Del

$~9
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CRL.M.C. 4860/2014
         SHAILY GOEL & ANR                                  ..... Petitioners
                   Through   Mr. Atul Guleria and Mr. Sandeep Singh,
                             Advocates with petitioner.

                             versus

         GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                  ..... Respondents
             Through  Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                      Inspector Raman Lamba, P.S. Mahrauli.
                      Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate with Mr. Jatin Gulati,
                      A.R. of R2/complainant.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%        SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.740/2014 registered under Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act on 16.05.2014, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate for respondent No.2 / complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. Sh. Jatin Gulati, Chief Finance Officer of the complainant company, who is also the authorized Representative, is present in person in Court today.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant alleging that the complainant company is in the business of manufacture and retail of women wears, and the petitioners were engaged as designers for the company. It is further alleged that contrary to certain

agreement in this behalf, the petitioners transmitted the designs prepared by them for the company to their personal email accounts, thereby violating the relevant provisions, including Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act.

5. Ultimately, the parties are stated to have entered into a settlement on 27.10.2014 settling their disputes, and where the complainant has also expressed the intention not to proceed any further against the petitioners.

6. The petitioners are stated to be young ladies at the threshold of their career and are stated to be holding Graduate Degrees in Textile Designing; and have expressed regret on what has happened; and are desirous of pursuing their professions without the stigma of a criminal trial.

7. Sh. Jatin Gulati, authorized Representative of the complainant company, approbates the aforesaid settlement, and states that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners, and the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter.

8. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the background; and the circumstances of the petitioners, and also the fact that they are young lady professionals; where the matter has been amicably resolved between the complainant and the petitioners, it is best to close the proceedings at this stage itself.

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 it is best to give a quietus to the matter at this stage itself since the parties concerned have amicably resolved their differences; and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby diminishing the chances of its success; and also because the petitioners are young ladies who are well qualified professionally in the field of Textile Designing, and they deserve an opportunity to pursue their career in an unblemished manner as far as reasonably possible.

10. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.740/2014 registered under Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act on 16.05.2014, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

11. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge DECEMBER 16, 2014 dr