Rameshwar Dayal & Ors vs Satish @ Satbir & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4375 Del

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.M.C. 4102/2014

        RAMESHWAR DAYAL & ORS            .... Petitioners
           Through Mr. Vikas Yadav and Upma Yadav, Advocates
                   with petitioners.

                           versus

        SATISH @ SATBIR & ORS                  ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Sub Inspector Ramesh Kumar.

H.C. Manoj.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.14081/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.4102/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.504/2014 registered under Section 323/452/34 IPC at police station Nihal Vihar on 04.08.2014, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the respondents 1, 2 and 3. The FIR came to be lodged at the instance of respondent No.1 Satish.

2. Issue notice.

Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice. Respondents 1, 2 and 3, who were stated to be the victims of the assault as per the FIR lodged, are present in person in

Court. The petitioners as well as respondents 1, 2 and 3 are identified by the Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Ramesh.

4. It is stated that the petitioner as well as respondents 1, 2, and 3 are residing and working in the same locality, and an altercation developed between the parties, which escalated and the petitioner had allegedly started beating the respondents 1, 2 and 3 with whatever material at hand including using some bricks.

5. The matter is stated to be pending investigation. In the meanwhile, the parties have settled the matter amongst themselves, and have also executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.09.2014 to that effect. Counsel for the petitioner further submits, on instructions, that the petitioners are also willing to pay any reasonable compensation to respondents 1, 2 and 3 that may be acceptable to them, in Court today; and also costs that this Court may impose; with a view to bringing the matter to an end.

In this regard, the petitioner have offered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to respondents 1, 2 and 3. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 approbate the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding, and state that the aforesaid amount is acceptable to them; and that they do not now wish to pursue the matter any further, and also pray that the same be closed.

6. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the injured are not interested in supporting the investigation any further; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

7. 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; 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."

I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself since the injured have settled the matter and are not prepared to support the investigation, subject to the aforesaid terms, and also the payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioners with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today. In addition, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- each to respondent 1, 2 and 3 has also been paid in Court today. Proof of costs deposited to be filed with the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter, with a copy to the Investigating Officer.

8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.504/2014 registered under Section 323/452/34 IPC at police station Nihal Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 dr