Jai Bhagwan & Ors vs The State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3182 Del

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

+       CRL.M.C. 3081/2014

        JAI BHAGWAN & ORS                                     ..... Petitioners
             Through Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate.

                            versus

        THE STATE & ANR                             ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Nishi Jain, APP with SI Roshan Lal, P.S. Nangloi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)

1. This application has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that FIR No.634/2006 registered under Section 408-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Nangloi, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed.

2. All the accused in the said FIR are arrayed as petitioners to this petition, and are stated to be present in Court today. The complainant, Naresh Kumari, is stated to have expired on 13.11.2008. The trial is stated to be at the stage of recording of evidence. It is stated that the dispute between the parties has ultimately been settled at the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari, Delhi and terms and conditions, whereupon the settlement has arrived at, has also been recorded before the Mediation Centre on 17.05.2014. A copy of the said order is annexed to this petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner identifies the petitioners as well as

Crl.M.C.No.3081/2014 Page 1 respondent No.2. The second respondent, Mahender Singh, also states that the matter be now closed as he is not interested in pursuing the same any further. He further states that he has received a sum of Rs.1 lakhs in cash today in Court, and that, with this payment, all the amounts mentioned in the settlement recorded before the aforesaid Mediation Centre stand paid. He also prays that proceedings be now quashed.

4. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the circumstances, and the fact that the matter has arisen primarily out of a domestic dispute; and since the complainant has already expired; and the complainant's father, who is the main witness in the matter, is also not interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the same.

5. In view of the overall circumstances, and looking to the pronouncements 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 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

Crl.M.C.No.3081/2014 Page 2 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

Crl.M.C.No.3081/2014 Page 3 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

Crl.M.C.No.3081/2014 Page 4 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

Crl.M.C.No.3081/2014 Page 5 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 with the proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a quietus.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and FIR No.634/2006 registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Nangloi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

7. The application stands disposed off.

                                          SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
                                                  (Judge)
JULY 18, 2014
dr




Crl.M.C.No.3081/2014                                                         Page 6