Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar Gupta vs State & Anr. on 15 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 15th September, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. No.3671/2013
PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State
with SI Pushpendra Saroha, P.S.
Kashmere Gate.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of
FIR No.192/2000 under Section 324 IPC registered at P.S. Kashmere
Gate, Delhi on the ground of settlement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and
respondent No.2 are real brothers, several cases are pending between the
parties and the parties have settled all the disputes before Mediation
Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 26.03.2012. He also submits that the
respondent No.2 had withdrawn civil suit filed by him.
3. Learned APP for the State submits that FIR No.192/2000 under
Section 324 IPC was registered against the petitioner in the year 2000.
During investigation, the offence under Section 307 IPC was added.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charge
under Section 307 IPC was framed. He also submits that after conclusion
of the trial, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 307
IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner has
preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.387/2009, which is
pending before this Court.
4. Learned APP for the State also urges that the petitioner has already
been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The petitioner has
challenged the judgment of conviction by filing the appeal, which is
pending. According to learned APP for the State, the present petition for
quashing of FIR is not maintainable.
5. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court today, submits that
petitioner had settled the matter before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi on 26.03.2012. At the time of settlement, a piece of land
situated at Panipat was given to him and his brother, Manoj Kumar
Gupta. He also submits that the said land had already been mortgaged on
29.09.1976 and the respondent has not received any property.
Respondent No.2 further submits that both the parties have undivided
1/3rd share in property bearing No.21/35, Shakti Nagar to be equally
divided amongst Smt. Darshan Devi, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Shri
Pramod Kumar Gupta and Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, but the said property
has not been sold till date.
6. Respondent No.2 also submits that the petitioner had failed to fulfil
the terms and conditions of the settlement and had revived the suits,
which were withdrawn by him.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and
given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.
8. While having a look at the sweep of the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it can be observed that no legislative enactment dealing with
procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The Courts,
therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law
which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed
upon them by law. In exercise of powers Court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it
amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
9. Having so understood the sweep of the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., I need only mention that the powers under Articles 226/ 227 of
the Constitution of India are co-extensive if not wider in its sweep. The
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as also Articles 226/ 227 of the
Constitution of India are available with the Court to do justice in a given
case when the conscience of the Court is satisfied that the powers must be
invoked.
10. The precedents galore to indicate the sweep, width and amplitude
of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section
482 Cr.P.C. does not really confer any power on the High Court
exercising criminal jurisdiction. It only saves the inherent powers of the
High Court, which was always there. Ex debito justitiae such powers can
be invoked and such powers were always available with the Court. The
width and amplitude of such powers must necessarily instill in the mind
of the Court the need to be circumspect.
11. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to
discuss the purpose and rationale underlying Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C., it
appears to me, is only that during the pendency of the proceedings
composition of even an offence under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. should
not be arrived at without the knowledge of the Court before which such
proceedings are pending. Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. is applicable to an
offence falling within the sweep of Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. also and the
purpose can only be to apprise the Court of such composition. There is
nothing in Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which makes a post revision
composition impermissible if the offence would fall within Section
320(1) of Cr.P.C. Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. speaks of the event of
conviction and pendency of an appeal or revision and it does not deal
with the liberty or option of the parties to compound the offence after
trial/ appeal/ revision. By the same reasons, it must hence be possible for
the parties to enter into a composition even after the verdict of guilty,
conviction and sentence have become final and no proceedings are
pending before any Court. Going by the plain language of Section 320(1)
of Cr.P.C., no time limit appears to have been fixed before which the
composition must necessarily take place, though for composition during
the pendency of appellate or revisional proceedings leave of the Court
must be sought under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. But then, such a
conclusion also creates further problems. If the verdict of guilty,
conviction and sentence have become final, which Court would accept
the same so as to avoid execution of the sentence, which has become
final.
12. In the present case, the petitioner was tried for the offence under
Section 307 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine and it is non-compoundable.
13. Moreover, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and he has preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal
No.387/2009, which is pending before this Court. The petitioner has,
however, filed a separate petition invoking the powers under Section 482
of Cr.P.C.
14. Further, respondent No.2 has stated that the petitioner had failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of settlement and therefore the
settlement has failed. As such the civil suits filed by respondent No. 2
have been revived.
15. The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that it is not a fit case to
invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
hs
