Ravinder Kanojia vs State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3194 Del

$~20
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       CRL.M.C. 3135/2014
        RAVINDER KANOJIA                                     ..... Petitioner
                 Through   Naomi Chandra, Advocate.

                           versus

        STATE & ORS                                          ..... Respondents
            Through        Mr. P. K. Mishra, APP.
                           ASI Anil Dutt, Nihal Vihar.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A.10878/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.186/2009 dated 01.08.2009 registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Nihal Vihar. It is stated that the petitioner was married to the complainant Sangeeta Kanojia, who is arrayed as respondent No.3 to this petition; and that a decree of divorce has been granted to the parties on 16.02.2012 in HMA No.335/2011 by the Additional District Judge pursuant to a joint petition moved under Section 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. During the course of

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014 Page 1 proceedings in the divorce petition in HMA No.335/2011, the statement of the complainant Sangeeta Kanojia was also recorded, setting down the following terms;

"........As per settlement between me and petitioner no.2, I have settled with petitioner No.2 all my disputes regarding stridhan and maintenance (past, present and future) for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). I have already received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from petition No.2 at the time of recording of our statement for first motion. Today I have received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from petitioner No.2 in cash. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by petition No. 2 to me at the time of quashing of FIR No. 186/09 u/s 498-A/406 IPC PS Nihal Vihar. Thereafter, nothing remains between us."

2. The respondent, Sangeeta Kanojia, is present in person, and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She states that she has now received the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- in cash in Court. She further approbates her aforesaid statement made on 16.02.2012 and also prays that the matter be closed, and the relief sought in the application be granted.

3. Charge sheet is also stated to have been filed.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for the State and states that the matter has primarily arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between parties; and since the matter has been amicably settled and the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings.

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014 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:

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014                                                Page 3
                               (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.

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014 Page 4 (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

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014 Page 5 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."

7. I am of the opinion that 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

Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014 Page 6 supporting the prosecution, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak; and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a quietus.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.186/2009 dated 01.08.2009 registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Nihal Vihar, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. The petition stands disposed off.

                                        SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
JULY 21, 2014
dr




Crl.M.C. No.3135/2014                                            Page 7