Delhi High Court
Subhash Solanki & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 July, 2014
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3092/2014
SUBHASH SOLANKI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. M. M. Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP.
Mr. Jitender Kumar, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.10722/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed off.
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014
1. This application has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners, Subhash Solanki and Smt. Indersi praying that FIR No.24/2011,
dated 28.01.2011, registered under Sections 324/34 IPC at Police Station
Palam Village, and all the proceedings arsing therefrom, be quashed. On a
perusal of the said FIR, it appears that the complainant, Mukesh Kumar,
who is also arrayed as the second respondent, and the petitioners are
neighbours living in the same village. On 27.1.2011, an altercation appears
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 1
to have taken place between the complainant and the accused, which
escalated and resulted in a fight between the first petitioner and the
complainant, during which time, it is stated that the accused Subhash
Solanki gave a blow to Mukesh Kumar, whereafter the complainant tried to
pursue Subhash Solanki but could not find him. Apparently, there was also
a property dispute going on between the two.
2. The charge sheet has been filed. After the charge sheet was filed, the
charge was framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 09.05.2012.
Thereafter, on 09.08.2012, at the request of both parties, the matter was
referred to mediation keeping in view the fact that both parties are
neighbours and cross cases are pending against each other. Ultimately, the
matter came to be settled before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Court , New
Delhi on 06.10.2012. The terms of settlement arrived at before the
Mediation Centre are also annexed at page 17 of the application. A perusal
of the same shows that the parties have settled all the claims and disputes
with regard to the aforesaid FIR No.24/2011 without any consideration, and
it is pursuant to this settlement that the instant application has been moved.
Further, an affidavit has been filed by the complainant, Mukesh Kumar,
stating that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
3. The complainant is also identified by his counsel, Sh. Jitender Kumar,
Advocate, who has handed over his vakalatnama at the bar in Court today
and the same is taken on record; as well as by counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the overall circumstances, it appears obvious that the
proceedings emanated out of a quarrel between the neighbours. Looking to
the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 2
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; 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.
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 3
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
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 4
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.
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 5
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."
And the judgment of this Court in 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:-
"14. .......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
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 6
peace in city, there will be peace in State. When
there is peace in State, there will be peace in
country.....
15. The petition is according allowed. FIR
No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police
station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all
consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also
ordered to be dropped."
I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in
continuing with the proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a
quietus.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.24/2011 under
Sections 324/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village, and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
6. The application stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
JULY 18, 2014
dr
Crl.M.C. No.3092/2014 Page 7
