Vishal Chaudhary & Ors vs The State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4039 Del

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

+         CRL.M.C. 3651/2014

          VISHAL CHAUDHARY & ORS                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through Mr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

                             versus

          THE STATE & ORS                                     ..... Respondents
                   Through            Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP.
                                      SI M. Alam, P.S. Shahdara.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%         SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.12575/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No. 3651/2014&Crl M.A. No 12576/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved by the petitioners praying that FIR No. 138/2013, under sections 308,341,34 IPC registered at police station Shahdara, and all proceedings emanating thereforms, be quashed on the ground that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts notice.

4. Respondents 2 and 3 are present in person. They are identified by the Investigation Officer Sub-Inspector M. Alam, Police Station Shahdara.

5. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered as a result of

an altercation which led to the assault complained of in the FIR. It is further stated that the accused / petitioners are young men of 22 and 23 years, and are studying in Shyamlal College in Delhi University. It is also stated that even the complainants are studying in the same college and that the both parties belong to the adjoining villages under the jurisdiction of police station Loni, Ghaziabad (UP).

6. A compromise deed executed between the parties on 12.08.2014 has also been annexed to this petition, which states that the matter has been amicably settles between the parties, "after the intervention of friends, relatives of both sides as well as the respectable persons of the society."

7. Counsel for the state submits that the investigation in the matter has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed in the court below, and the matter is to be taken up for the purpose of framing charges. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the complainants were assaulted at the Shyam Lal College with, "danda and rod", which necessitated the complainants' treatment at G.T.B. Hospital, where blunt injuries were found on both their heads.

8. He submits that looking to the circumstances, there should be no question for quashing such proceedings where the investigation is complete and charge sheet has also been filed, without imposition of appropriate costs and compensation. He also suggested that the petitioners should be directed to pay minimum of Rs. 50,000/- each to each of the complainant towards compensation, along with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards costs to any appropriate forum.

In response, counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are willing to pay any reasonable compensation and costs as may be decided by this court in the matter.

At this stage, this Court expressed the opinion that imposition of Rs. 35,000/- each as compensation to each of the complainant; along with Rs. 25,000/- to the indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi; might suffice as reasonable deterrent to the accused persons/petitioners. Thereafter, the matter was passed over to enable counsel for the petitioners to seek appropriate instructions in this matter from his clients.

9. After lunch, when the matter was taken up again, counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainants, who are present have also been consulted in the meanwhile, and that they are not interested in receiving any compensation.

10. Under the circumstances, to my mind, it would be appropriate if the entire amount of Rs. 95,000/- is directed to be paid to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of Bar Council of Delhi by the petitioners.

On hearing this, counsel for the petitioners states that, in that event, the complainants are willing to accept the compensation themselves as proposed earlier.

11. Looking to the manner in which this hearing has proceeded, I do not think it appropriate to reverse that position, since there is every likelihood that the respondents 2 and 3 may simply take money from the petitioners and hand it back to them afterwards.

12. Under the circumstances, and 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 the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the complainants have settled the matter and are not interested in supporting the prosecution any further, which would weaken the case of the prosecution; and also keeping in mind the special circumstances; provided the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 95,000/- with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of Bar Council of Delhi within two weeks from today. Proof of costs to be deposited in the trial court before the proceedings before that court are closed; with a copy to the Investigating Officer.

13. Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that he undertakes to deposit this amount within the time granted.

14. Consequently, this petition is allowed, and FIR No. 138/2013, under Sections 308, 341, 34 IPC registered at police Station Shahadra, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed on the aforesaid

terms.

15. The petition is disposed off.

16. Dasti

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 dr