Delhi High Court
Vishnu Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 11 July, 2014
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2976/2014
VISHNU KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Ashwani Tripathi, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Nishi Jain, APP.
Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate with R2.
SI Randhir, PS. Aman Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No.10310/2014
This is an application moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of
delay in refiling the petition.
For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed and the
delay in refiling the petition is condoned.
The application is disposed off.
Crl.M.C. No.2976/2014
1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying that FIR No.623/2013 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC
at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi, against the petitioners by respondent
No.2 Sapna, be quashed since the parties have amicably settled their
disputes and differences by entering into a Settlement Agreement on
Crl .M.C. No.2976/2014 Page 1
11.02.2014 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts,
Delhi. A certified copy of the Agreement settling the matter has also been
annexed to this petition; terms and conditions, upon which the matter has
been settled, have already been spelt out therein. A perusal of the same
shows that petitioner No.1, Vishnu Kumar and the complainant, Sapna, who
is arrayed as second respondent to this petition and who happens to be his
wife, have now resolved their differences and started living together ever
since 17.01.2014 at a residence separate from their respective families, and
that they do not have any grievance left against each other. The affidavit of
second respondent, Sapna, is also annexed to this petition. The other
petitioners, all of whom are accused in the aforesaid FIR, have appended
their own affidavits to this petition.
2. All the parties are present in person in Court and they are duly
identified by their respective counsel.
3. Looking to the circumstances, and the fact that the parties have
reconciled their differences; and specially the fact that petitioner No.1
Vishnu and the complainant, Sapna, have decided to preserve their
marriage; and that the complainant is no longer willing to support the
prosecution; to my mind, it is a fit case where the matter should be given
quietus.
4. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also
agrees to this position.
5. Consequently, in view of the above; and looking at the ratio of
the decision 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
Crl.M.C. No.2976/2014 Page 2
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 27 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"31. 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:
(I) 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.
(II) 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.
Crl.M.C. No.2976/2014 Page 3
(III) 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.
(IV) On the other, 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.
(V) 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.
(VI) 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
Crl.M.C. No.2976/2014 Page 4
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.
(VII) 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
Crl.M.C. No.2976/2014 Page 5
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 no useful purpose would be served in
continuing the proceedings and the same deserve to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.623/2014
registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station Aman Vihar,
Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
7. The petition stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
JUDGE
JULY 11, 2014
dr
Crl.M.C. No.2976/2014 Page 6
