Baljeet Singh & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5642 Del

$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. 5040/2014

       BALJEET SINGH & ORS.                                   ..... Petitioner
                     Through:           Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma,
                                        Advocate with petitioners in person
                          versus
       STATE & ORS.                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through       Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP with SI Ram
                                        Mehar Singh, PS Mukherjee Nagar.
                                        Mr. G.S. Aneja, Adv. for R-2 with
                                        R-2 in person
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%      SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. No. 17278/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off.

CRL.M.C. 5040/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 136/2013 registered on 20.4.2013 under Sections 341/448/380/34 IPC at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr.G.S. Aneja, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. The parties are also identified by the Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Ram Mehar Singh, PS Mukherjee Nagar.

3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed at the instance of the complainant, who happened to be a tenant in the premises where the fourth petitioner, Balbir Singh, is stated to be the landlord.

4. It is alleged that the petitioners had unlawfully trespassed and broken into the property in question and also removed the personal belongings of the complainant, and thereafter denied the complainant entry into the premises.

5. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid complaint having been filed, a settlement had been arrived at between the parties. A copy of the Compromise Deed executed between the complainant and the fourth petitioner, Balbir Singh, on 28.10.2014, has also been annexed to this petition. In terms of the settlement, the fourth petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 Lacs to the complainant towards compensation. The said amount has been handed over to the complainant in cash in court today.

6. The complainant approbates the aforesaid settlement and states that with the receipt of this amount, he has no further claims against the petitioners, and further that he is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, which has been amicably resolved.

7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, since the complainant, who is a young man, has apparently settled the matter with the petitioners and the matter is at the preliminary stage of investigation, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the case provided the petitioners are also directed to pay some costs keeping in view the fact that the State machinery has been involved in this matter for more than a year.

8. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioners, who

are present in Court today submits that they are willing to pay any reasonable costs.

9. Looking to the decisions 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 67 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"29. 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:

29.1 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.

29.2 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. 29.3 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. 29.4 On the other hand, 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. 29.5 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.

29.6 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.

29.7 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."

And the judgment of this Court in Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr.

in Crl. M.C. No. 6621-24/2006 decided on 3rd September, 2007, wherein it was, inter alia, held as under:-

"14. .......Peace has been brought in the locality with the intervention of the well wishers of the locality. When there is peace in locality, there will be peace in the town. When there is peace in town, there will be peace in city. When there is peace in city, there will be peace in State. When there is peace in State, there will be peace in country.....

15. The petition is according allowed. FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."

I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have amicably settled the matter on terms and the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the same, subject to the payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards costs to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers'Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioners to do the same. The statement of counsel for the petitioner is accepted by this Court.

Proof of deposit be also filed in this Court within one week thereafter with a copy thereof to the Investigating Officer.

10. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 136/2013 registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar on 20.4.2013 under Sections 341/448/380/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

11. The petition is disposed off.

12. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

NOVEMBER 11, 2014 rd