Savita Vashist vs State & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4041 Del

$~14 & 15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.A. 1034/2012

         SAVITA VASHIST                                                ..... Appellant
                      Through:                     Mr. M.S. Bammi, Adv. with
                                                   appellant in person

                                        versus

         STATE & ORS.                                                ..... Respondents
                                        Through:   Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI
                                                   Puneet Grewal, PS Ashok Vihar
                                                   Mr. Suman Malhotra, Adv. for R-2-6

+        CRL.M.C. 4027/2011

         SAVITA VASHIST & ORS                                          ..... Petitioners
                      Through:                     Mr. M.S. Bammi, Adv. with
                                                   Petitioner in person

                                        versus

         STATE & ANR                                                 ..... Respondents
                                        Through:   Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI
                                                   Puneet Grewal, PS Ashok Vihar
                                                   Mr. Suman Malhotra, Adv. for R-2
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.A. 1034/2012 CRL.M.C. 4027/2011

1. These two matters are being taken up together since there is a certain overlapping of facts and circumstances and also because parties in both the matters have now settled all their disputes amicably and jointly pray that a quietus be given to both these matters.

2. Crl. A. No. 1034/2012 is arising out of FIR No. 393/2007, which was registered on 09.06.2007 by Police Station Ashok Vihar under Sections 308/341/34 IPC at the instance of Smt. Savita Vashist, i.e. the appellant herein. In that FIR, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 shown in the Memo of Parties of Crl.A. 1034/2012 were shown as the accused persons. After trial, the said respondents came to be acquitted by the trial court on 12.07.2012. Aggrieved of the same, the complainant Savita Vashist instituted the instant appeal.

3. At the same time, Crl.M.C. No. 4027/2011 had been instituted by the petitioner, Savita Vashist, Mr. Anand Swaroop Vashist and Smt. Kanta Devi, impugning an FIR No. 162/2011 registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar on 04.08.2011 under Sections 341/380/454/34/120B IPC at the instance of her husband, Shri Tarun Dutt Parashar. This FIR is stated to have been registered at the instance of the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2011. At the same time, a Civil Suit bearing No. 154/2007 was also instituted by Smt. Suman Sharma, against Smt. Savita Vashist, before the Court of the District Judge, Delhi at Tis Hazari Courts seeking possession and damages along with mesne profits. It is stated by counsel on both sides that ultimately, on 19.02.2014, an overall settlement was arrived at between the parties with regard to all the aforesaid proceedings. The terms and conditions of the settlement was recorded on oath by the concerned Additional District Judge in the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 131/2009. By the said statement, Smt. Suman Sharma, wife of late Shri G.D. Sharma, Smt. Savita Vashist, wife of Shri Tarun Dutt Parasher, as well as Shri Tarun Dutt Parasher, son of Late Shri G.D. Sharma, proved the terms of the said compromise which were set down in a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151

CPC and which was exhibited as PW-1/1 has been handed over by counsel at the Bar. The entire set is taken on record.

4. Both Smt. Savita Vashist and Shri Tarun Dutt Parashar, are present in Court today. They are also identified by the Investigating Officer. Both of them approbate the aforesaid settlement and undertake to remain bound by the same. The consequences of violation of any of the terms mentioned therein have also been explained to them by their counsel.

5. The statement of these parties to that effect is also accepted by this court.

6. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the matters have arisen largely out of a family dispute where an overall settlement has now been arrived at on terms and where none of the persons aggrieved are interested in pursuing the matter, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings.

7. 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 a quietus be given to the aforesaid matters, especially since the complainant in FIR No. 162/2011 is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution thereby reducing the chances of success whilst at the same time, the appellant in Crl.A. No. 1034/2012 has also given up her challenge to the order of acquittal dated 12.07.2012 which were passed in connection with FIR No. 393/2007.

8. Consequently, Crl.M.C. 4027/2011 is allowed and the aforesaid FIR No. 162/2011 registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar on 04.08.2011 under Sections 341/380/454/34/120B IPC, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. At the same time, Crl.A. No. 1034/2012 is dismissed as not pressed.

10. In addition, and since both the aforesaid matters are being disposed off, the personal bond and surety furnished by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Crl.A. No. 1034/2012 in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court on 03.04.2013 shall also stand discharged. At the same time, the bail bond and surety furnished before the court below in connection with FIR No. 162/2011 shall also stand discharged.

CRL.M.A. Nos. 18833/2011 & 17483/2012 IN CRL.M.C. 4027/2011 In view of the orders passed in the main petition being Crl.M.C. No. 4027/2011, these applications do not survive and the same are dismissed as such.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 rd