Suraj & Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6205 Del

$~43 & 45
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CRL.M.C. 4354/2014
      SURAJ & ORS                                       ..... Petitioners
                            Through:   Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with
                                       petitioners.

                            versus

      GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS               ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public
                             Prosecutor for the State with Sub
                             Inspector Naveen Kumar, PS Hauz
                             Khas.
                             Mr. Siddharth Aneja, Advocate for
                             the complainants with complainants
                             in person.
AND

+     CRL.M.C. 4340/2014
      SUNIL & ORS                                       ..... Petitioners
                            Through:   Mr. Siddharth Aneja, Advocate with
                                       petitioners.

                            versus

      GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS              ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public
                             Prosecutor for the State with Sub
                             Inspector Naveen Kumar, PS Hauz
                             Khas.
                             Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the
                             complainants with complainants in
                             person.




CRL.M.C. 4340 & 4354/2014                                              Page 1 of 8
       CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


%     SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

1. Both these petitions seek quashing of FIR No.481/2014 under Sections 308/147/323/148/324/149/34 IPC; and FIR No.483/2014 under Sections 147/148/149/323/308/34 IPC; both registered on 5th May, 2014 at Police Station Hauz Khas, on the ground that the parties concerned in both the matters, which are essentially cross cases filed by the parties against each other, have settled their disputes.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of State/R-1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Siddharth Aneja, Advocate accept notice on behalf of complainant/R-2 in Crl. M.C. Nos. 4340/2014 and 4354/2014 respectively. Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Ahuja filed in both the matters has been handed over in the Court today at the Bar and the same is taken on record.

3. Petitioners and complainants are present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer/ Sub Inspector Naveen Kumar, Police Station Hauz Khas.

4. It is alleged that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the respective complainants as a result of an altercation that had taken place between the two groups who are residing in the same area.

5. The parties, who are stated to be known to each other, have thereafter entered into a compromise which was recorded on 1 st August, 2014. The

compromise deed has also been annexed with the respective petitions. The complainants in both the matters state that they do not wish to proceed in the matter any further and that they have settled all their disputes and they have no claims against each other whatsoever.

6. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the matters are at the initial stage of investigation and since the parties have settled their disputes amicably amongst themselves; and they wish to live in harmony as neighbours while bringing their enmity to an end, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings, where the complainants are also no longer interested in assisting the investigation subject of course, to payment of costs by both the petitioners/accused in both the matters.

7. Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners respectively, state that they are willing to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- in each matter towards costs.

8. Looking to the decision 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 basis of a settlement 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 and have decided to live in harmony and the complainants are no longer interested in pursuing the matters, because of which, its chances of any success in the matter are now greatly diminished.

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.481/2014 registered under Sections 308/147/323/148/324/149/34 IPC; and FIR No.483/2014 registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/308/34 IPC; both registered on 5th May, 2014 at police station Hauz Khas, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject, however, to the payment of Rs. 75,000/- towards costs in each matter to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi within two days from today. Proof of deposit of costs be also filed in this Court within one week

thereafter with a copy thereof to the Investigating Officer.

10. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA JUDGE NOVEMBER 27, 2014 dr/AK