Nafees vs State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 4735 Del

$~24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 4361/2014 and Crl. M.A. 14981/2014 (for stay)

      NAFEES                                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through:     Petitioners in person with Ms. Guddi,
                                         Advocate.

                            versus

      STATE & ANR                                         ..... Respondents
                            Through:     Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State
                                         with SI Jitender Singh, PS GTB
                                         Enclave.
                                         Mr. S.K. Roy, Advocate for the
                                         complainant with complainant in
                                         person.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

                            ORDER

% 23.09.2014

This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 397/2013 under Sections 279/304A IPC registered at Police Station GTB Enclave on 1st November, 2013 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

Issue notice.

2. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.K. Roy, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State and complainant, respectively.

3. Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person, and are identified by IO/ SI Jitender Singh, Police Station GTB Enclave.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant-Surender Singh on account of an accident that had occurred in which deceased-Jagbir Singh died after collusion with the motor vehicle driven by the petitioner. At the time of the death of the deceased- Jagbir Singh he was stated to be about 58 years of age and was working as an ATI with Delhi Transport Corporation and was standing near Mansarover Park in connection with his duty when he was struck by the vehicle being driven by the petitioner.

5. Investigation in the matter is still going on. Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has been settled before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts on 21st February, 2014. A copy of the settlement arrived at between the parties has also been annexed with this petition. In terms thereof the legal representatives of the deceased have agreed to accept a total sum of Rs.10,20,000/- in all as compensation towards all their claims. With the aforesaid payment made by the petitioner to the legal heirs of the deceased, complainant state that they do not want to pursue with the proceedings any further and that the proceedings be closed.

6. Further, counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances and since the parties have settled the matter and have compensated the LR's of the deceased, who are, in a sense the main aggrieved parties; and also in view of the fact that they are no

longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings.

7. 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.....

I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and

have also compensated the LR's of the deceased who is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution thereby reducing the chances of success.

8. Consequently, FIR No. 397/2013 under Sections 279/304A IPC registered at Police Station GTB Enclave on 1st November, 2013 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

9. The petition and the pending application being Crl. M.A. 14981/2014 are disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2014/AK