Alok & Ors vs State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3077 Del

$~21
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            CRL.M.C. 2991/2014

    ALOK & ORS                                               ..... Petitioners
                             Through:   Mr. R.M. Tufail and Mr. Vishal Raj
                                        Sehijpal, Advocates.
                             versus

    STATE & ANR                                           ..... Respondents
                             Through:   Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for the State
                                        with ASI Pradeep Kumar, PS Aman
                                        Vihar.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

    % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. No. 10388/2014 (for exemption)

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed off.

CRL.M.C. 2991/2014

1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Alok, Ujjawal and Mohammad Shahid praying that FIR No. 131/2013 under Sections 307/34 IPC registered at Police Station Aman Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

2. FIR No. 131/2013 was registered on a complaint by one Sh.Kaushal Kumar who is also arrayed as respondent No. 3 in this petition. In the FIR the complainant has alleged that at about 2:00

p.m. on 27th March, 2013 complainant and his uncle, namely, Anuj were proceeding to their junk godown from their house when an altercation took place with the accused and the third petitioner Shahid, who is stated to have caught hold of Anuj and also assaulted the complainant. A knife blow is also stated to have been inflicted on Anuj by one of the accused persons.

3. After investigation, charge sheet under Section 307/34 IPC was duly filed against four persons including the three petitioners herein. The fourth accused Bharat whose name was included in the charge sheet is stated to have been tried separately by the juvenile Court, from where he was released on 21st September, 2013 after having been convicted for the period already undergone during trial.

4. The petitioners have also annexed a deed of settlement entered into between them as well as the complainant, namely, Kaushal and injured Anuj. It is stated that settlement has been arrived at between the parties with the intervention of the "seniors of the family members and well wishers", and they have jointly decided to put an end to the litigation. It is also stated that petitioners are young men around 20 years of age and are at the threshold of their career and that the present criminal proceeding if allowed to continue, likely to remain as a stigma on them for the rest of their lives.

5. Further, it is pointed out that entire incident occurred due to sudden quarrel that took place at the spot without any premeditation and happened in the heat of the moment.

6. Issue notice.

7. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned APP for the State enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondents are present in

person and are identified by IO/ ASI Pradeep Kumar.

8. This Court has also inquired the respondents as to whether they have decided to settle the matter in the manner envisaged in the settlement deed. They reply in affirmative and they also affirm that they have signed the settlement deed which is placed at page 47 of the paper book.

9. Counsel for the State also states that looking at the overall circumstances and since the complainant and the injured are not willing to support the prosecution case, it will be appropriate that an end should be brought to these proceedings.

10. In this context counsel for the respondents has also referred to the decision of the Single Bench of this Court titled, Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr. in Crl. M.C. No. 6621-24/2006 decided on 3rd September, 2007; wherein it was inter alia held as under:-

"Peace has been brought in the locality with the intervention of the well wishers of the locality. When there is peace in locality, there will be peace in the town. When there is peace in town, there will be peace in city. When there is peace in city, there will be peace in State. When there is peace in State, there will be peace in country."

11. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC) and in particular para 31 thereof, which inter alia states 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. (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 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 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."

12. The matter is stated to be listed before the trial Court for evidence of prosecution on 18th September, 2014.

13. Looking into the overall circumstances, I am satisfied that the need of justice will be met if the matter is brought to end. More so, since the prosecution does not involve any heinous/serious offence or mental depravity.

14. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no useful

purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending.

15. Accordingly, FIR No. 131/2013 under Sections 307/34 IPC registered at Police Station Aman Vihar and the proceedings emanating there from are hereby quashed. However, this is subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each, to be paid to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Account, Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, undertakes to this Court that the same shall be done within the aforesaid period.

16. A copy of the order be given dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) JULY 14, 2014 AK