Kartikrya Khanna vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 5162 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. 4698/2014

       KARTIKRYA KHANNA                                      ..... Petitioner
                   Through:             Mr. B.S. Dhir and Mr. Puneet Singh
                                        Dhir, Advocates with petitioner in
                                        person.

                          versus

       STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) &ANR          ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for the State
                              with HC Raj Kumar, PS Ambedkar
                              Nagar.
                              Ms. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate 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. 15990/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off.

CRL.M.C. 4698/2014

1. This petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 366/2014 registered under Section 279/338 IPC at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on 13th June, 2014 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf the State and respondent No.2, respectively.

3. Complainant as well as the petitioner are present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer/ Head Constable Raj Kumar, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant as a result of an accident that occurred when the complainant was crossing a road from Khanpur to Chirag Delhi and a motor vehicle being driven by the accused/petitioner collided with him. As a result of the incident, complainant received injuries on his forearm for which he was treated. The complainant is stated to have fully recovered from the said injuries.

5. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. In the meanwhile, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement on 14th June, 2014. A copy of the settlement deed setting out all the relevant terms has been annexed to the petition. In terms of the said settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant/injured who required substantial treatment. This amount has admittedly been paid to the respondent/complainant.

6. Looking to the overall circumstances and after having heard counsel for both the parties, it appears that medical expenses as well as the direct loss of earning that occurred to the complainant as a result of the incident itself came to about 2,50,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions

from the petitioner, states that in addition to this, the petitioner is also willing to pay a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/injured in full and final settlement of all civil claims towards damages, etc. that he may have in this behalf. He also adverts to the fact that after the accident had occurred, petitioner, in fact, stopped his car and had gone for the assistance of the complainant, which fact is demonstrated from the FIR itself. Complainant, who is present in person, also affirms the said fact.

7. Complainant approbates the aforesaid settlement. He also states that the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- is acceptable to him in full and final settlement of all his claims. Complainant has received amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash in the court today.

8. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances and since the matter is at the preliminary stage of investigation where the charge sheet is yet to be filed and since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement on terms and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the investigation, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the matter any further.

9. Petitioner is a young man of about 22 years of age and belongs to a good family background and is stated to have completed his Master's degree in International Relations from Leiden University, Netherlands.

10. 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 opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus, since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. Moreover, the petitioner is a young man and is at the threshold of his life, and wishes to pursue an unblemished career; and has duly compensated the complainant who is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution thereby reducing the chances of its success.

11. Consequently, the FIR No. 366/2014 registered under Section 279/338 IPC at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on 13th June, 2014 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

12. The petition stands disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA JUDGE OCTOBER 15, 2014/AK