Delhi High Court
Rohit Bhardwaj & Ors vs State & Anr on 18 July, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3096/2014
ROHIT BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Nanak Chand Garg, proxy counsel for
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. P. K. Mishra, APP.
SI Ram Manohar, PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, proxy counsel for
Mr. Sumit Garg, Advocate with Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)
1. This application has been moved praying FIR No.79/2013 registered
under Section 498-A/406 IPC at Police Station Keshav Puram on
07.03.2013, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed in view of
the amicable settlement reached between the parties concerned.
2. The matter is stated to be at the stage of trial. At the same time, a
petition seeking divorce by mutual consent has also been moved by the
parties and a decree of divorce has also been granted to the petitioner No.1
Rohit Bhardwaj and the complainant, Pooja on 23.04.2014, whereby the
marriage between the two was dissolved. A certified copy of the judgment
dated 23.04.2014 in HMA No.648/2014 pronounced by the Additional
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 1
Principal Judge, North West, Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi, along with the
joint statement of the parties recorded by that court on the same date have
been handed over by counsel for the respondent No.2 / complainant at the
bar today. The same are taken on record.
3. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the first
petitioner is stated to have deposited a balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/-
payable to the second respondent / complainant by way of a Demand Draft
bearing No.087104, dated 22.04.2014, drawn on State of Bank of India,
Delhi, in the court of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, North West, Rohini Delhi, which is to be released to the
second respondent on the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, which is the subject
matter of these proceedings.
4. Counsel for the second respondent, i.e., the complainant, as well as
the complainant, who is present in person in Court, affirm that the
complainant has received all other amounts contemplated in the aforesaid
joint statement recorded on 23.04.2014, and that now she has no objection
to the quashing of the instant proceedings , thus paving the way for the
release of the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, which is lying in
the form of the aforementioned demand draft with the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, North West, Rohini, Delhi, to her.
5. Counsel for the State also submits that the looking to the
circumstances of the matter, and since this is purely a domestic matter
where parties have amicably settled their disputes; and the complainant is
not interested in pursuing the matter any further; no useful purpose will be
served in continuing with these proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 2
6. 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
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
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 3
(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
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 4
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
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 5
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."
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.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and FIR No.79/2013
registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at Police Station Keshav Puram,
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 6
and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The application stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
JULY 18, 2014
dr
Crl.M.C. No.3096/2014 Page 7
