Arshad Ali vs State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4282 Del

$~16
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+         CRL.M.C. 4015/2014
          ARSHAD ALI                                         ..... Petitioner
                   Through   Mr. Sunil Kalra and Ms. Priya Sharma with
                             petitioner.

                             versus

          STATE & ORS                                        ..... Respondents
              Through        Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                             Mr. S.K.Pandey, Advocate for R 2 to 8/legal
                             representatives of the complainant.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%         SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the FIR No.206/2013 registered under Section 279/304-A IPC at Madhu Vihar, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner / accused and respondents 2 to 8, all of whom are stated to be the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kalav.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, and Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate for the complainant, enter appearance and accept notice.

3. The Investigating Officer ASI Ved Prakash identifies the petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 8.

4. It is stated that the deceased Ram Kalav was pulling a rickshaw / rehri loaded with tiles at Karkari Flyover, Read No.57, Patpar Ganj, Delhi and was involved in an accident with a car being driven by the petitioner

Arshad Ali, as a result of which, Ram Kalav got injured, and he was removed from the accident spot to the MAX Hospital, Patpar Ganj, Delhi by the petitioner / accused himself. It is further stated that injured Ram Kalav died on the next day, i.e. 14.04.2013. Further, the petitioner is also stated to have paid the entire medical bill of the hospital raised towards the treatment of Ram Kalav.

5. It is stated that the matter has thereafter been amicably compromised as recorded on 31.05.2013 before the MACT Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi. A copy of the said order has also been annexed to this petition. In terms of the said order, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- to the respondents, who were also the claimants before the MACT Court, in full and final settlement of all their dues. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- has already been paid, and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be paid in Court today.

6. After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, has agreed to pay additional amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondents 2 to 8. Consequently, a total amount of Rs.60,000/-, in all, has been paid in cash in Court today to the said respondents.

7. The respondents state that with this payment, they are no longer interested in pursuing the matter, and that the same be closed. They also specifically approbate the aforesaid settlement that has been recorded by the MACT Court on 31.05.2013.

8. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the matter has been amicably settled, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

9. Consequently, 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; by observing as under:

"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

And also in 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."

I am of the opinion that a quietus be given to the matter since the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kalav, who died because of the unfortunate accident, have settled the matter on terms with the petitioner and are not interested in pursuing the same any further; and in view of the fact that the petitioner, who is now stated to be pursuing the M.B.A. degree, had acted in a responsible manner by removing the injured Ram Kalav to the hospital, where he got him admitted and also paid for his treatment.

10. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.206/2013 registered under Section 279/304-A IPC at Madhu Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

11. The petition is disposed off.

12. Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 dr