Delhi High Court

Himanshu & Ors vs State Of Govt Of Delhi & Anr on 21 July, 2014

$~
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CRL.M.C. 3131/2014
         HIMANSHU & ORS
                                                                  ..... Petitioners
                                   Through: Mr. Kamal Vijay, Adv.

                        versus

         STATE OF GOVT OF DELHI & ANR
                                                             ..... Respondents
                                   Through: Mr. O. P. Saxena, APP for State
                                           with SI G. R. Tanwar, PS Vijay
                                           Vihar.
                                           Mr. R. K. Singh, Adv. for R-
                                           2/complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. 10841/2014 (for exemption)

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions

This application is disposed off.

Crl. M.C. 3131/2014

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No.232/2013, under Sections 498-A/34 IPC registered at P.S. Vijay Vihar, Delhi on the ground that disputes between the parties has been amicably settled and further that a divorce by mutual consent has also been granted to the petitioner No.1 Mr.

Himanshu and the complainant Mrs. Nisha , who is arrayed as respondent No.2.

2. Complainant Nisha is also present in person along with her parents, namely Shri Radhey Shyam and Smt. Somwati. The complainant is identified by her counsel and Investigating Officer. The affidavit of complainant has also been annexed to this petition, wherein she has stated that the matter has been amicably settled and all the disputes in respect of dowry articles, stridhan and regarding past, present and future maintenance have been settled. Out of total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- towards full and final settlement payment, Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 /complainant before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 10.12.2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 on 19.12.2013 at the time of statement recorded under Section 13 (B) (1) of HMA before the Ld. Family Judge Sh. Deepak Jaghotra, Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi, and Rs.1,20,000/- also paid on 09.07.2014 by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2/complainant at the time of statement recorded under Section 13 (B) 2 of HMA before the Ld. Family Judge Ms. Bimla Kumari, Ld. ASJ, Family Court Rohini court, Delhi. The balance amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the complainant at the time of quashing of this FIR in these proceedings.

3. Counsel for the parties also acknowledge that out of the total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- which formed the consideration for the settlement; Rs. 3,20,000/- has already been paid as aforesaid, and the remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- has been handed over today to the complainant by way of a demand draft bearing no.543206 dated 16.06.2014 drawn on Canara Bank, Rohini Sector-5, Delhi, favouring Nisha Rani.

4. The complainant acknowledges receipt of the same. She further states that she has no further grievance against the petitioners, and the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR be brought to an end.

5. The charge-sheet is stated to have been filed.

6. Issue notice.

7. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice and states that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the prosecution, specially since the complainant is not inclined to proceed with the matter any further; and keeping in view the fact that the proceedings have been emanated from what is largely a family dispute.

8. Consequently, in view of the above; and looking at the ratio of the decision 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

(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."

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.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.232/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 34 IPC at Police Station Vijay Vihar Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.