Shanker & Ors vs The State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3175 Del

$~22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CRL.M.C. 3102/2014

         SHANKER & ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                 Through:         Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate with
                                  petitioner in person

                       versus
         THE STATE & ANR                              ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with
                              SI Nitin Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar
                              Ms. Neha Upadhyay, Adv. for R-2 with
                              R-2 in person
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that the FIR No. 775/07 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed, has been moved by the petitioners, all of whom have been arrayed as the accused in the aforesaid FIR, and in the consequent proceedings before the trial court where the charge has been framed under Section 498A against all the petitioners.

2. It is stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding executed on 10.12.2013 between the first petitioner, Shanker, and the complainant, Smt. Meena, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2.

3. Initially, pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid Memorandum of

Understanding, the parties have moved Criminal MC No. 509/2014 seeking similar relief. After hearing both the parties, and also perusing the FIR and looking at all the surrounding circumstances, the Court had concluded that, "it is quite early for parties to seek quashing of this FIR". Consequently, that petition was disposed off as premature while granting liberty to the parties to seek similar relief after another six months. A copy of the said order dated 31.01.2014 was also annexed to this petition.

4. The petitioners have now moved the instant petition for the same relief. The complainant, Meena, who is also represented by counsel, states that she is satisfied, and that the settlement that was arrived at with her husband on 10.12.2013, appears to be working, and she has no further complaints.

5. The Investigation Officer, SI Nitin Kumar, Police Station Uttam Nagar, who is also present in Court today, identifies the petitioners, as well as the second respondent.

6. The petitioners, who are present in Court, and are duly identified by their counsel, also state that they will ensure that there is no repetition of any untoward incident with the second respondent. Counsel for the petitioners further states that he has explained to them the consequences of any further untoward incidents.

7. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC), whereby the Supreme Court has 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.

(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."

8. Additionally, the decision of the Supreme Court rendered 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 agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant.

9. Looking to the overall circumstances, and the fact that the parties have been residing together for more than six months now after arriving at an amicable settlement in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of

Understanding, and the fact that they have also got two young daughters, whom they are looking after, I consider it appropriate to bring a quietus to the proceedings since no useful purpose would be served in continuing with these proceedings. The disputes in question have arisen primarily out of a matrimonial relationship where the parties have resolved the entire dispute themselves; and since the complainant is now not interested in supporting the prosecution, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. For all these reasons, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 775/07 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

11. The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) JULY 18, 2014 rd