Delhi High Court
Sanjay & Ors vs The State & Ors on 17 September, 2014
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3990/2014
SANJAY & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sumit Gautam, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Trilok Chand, Advocate for R2 to 5.
Sub Inspector Somil Sharma.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.13683/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed off.
Crl.M.C. No.3990/2014
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No.758/2006, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri under Section 323,
341, 435, 506, 34 IPC on 12.09.2006; on the ground that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr.
Trilok Chand, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, enter appearance and
accept notice. The parties are also identified by the Investigating Officer Sub
Inspector Somil Sharma.
3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of
the complainants due to some altercation that occurred at the shop of
petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Kishan and Naresh, over recharge of a mobile
phone, which ultimately escalated into violence. It is stated that now both the
parties, who stay in the same area, have since decided to resolve their
disputes amicably, and consequently, the parties have also executed a
Compromise Deed dated 21.07.2014 settling the matter.
In addition, and on instructions from the petitioners, counsel for the
petitioners has also offered to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
complainant, i.e., respondents 2 to 5, towards further compensation. The said
complainants, who are present in person, approbate the aforesaid terms and
also state that they are no longer interested in pursuing the matter, and the
proceedings may be closed. The aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- has been
handed over to respondents 2 to 5 by the petitioners in cash in Court today.
4. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances,
and also the fact that the parties have amicably settled the matter, and the
petitioner have also paid the aforesaid further compensation in Court today;
no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.
5. 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."
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."
6. I am of the opinion that since both the complainants as well as the
petitioners/ accused belong to the same locality where the altercation had
taken place over a comparatively minor matter, which thereafter escalated
into violence; which they have finally settled amicably amongst themselves;
and the complainants are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution,
thereby reducing chance of its success; therefore, this matter deserves to be
given a quietus that would help in restoring harmony and peace within the
community.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.758/2006, registered
at Police Station Nand Nagri under Section 323, 341, 435, 506, 34 IPC, and
all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The petition is disposed off.
9. Dasti.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
dr
