Pappu Gangwal & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 4760 Del

$~3 to 5
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.M.C. 3174/2014

        RATTAN LAL & ORS                                          ..... Petitioners
                     Through:                  Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.

                                   versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                 ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State with Sub Inspector Pradeep.

Mr. Manish, Advocate for R-2.

+       CRL.M.C. 3175/2014

        PAPPU GANGWAL & ANR                     ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Manish, Advocate.

                                   versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State with ASI Rammehar, Div/ N/w.

Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate for R-2.

+       CRL.M.C. 3177/2014

        PAPPU LAL & ANR                                           ..... Petitioner
                      Through:                 Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.

                                   versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR              ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State with ASI Ram Mehar, PS Saraswati Vihar.

Mr. Manish, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.11023/2014 in Crl.M.C. No.3174/2014 Crl.M.A. No.11024/2014 in Crl.M.A. No.3175/2014 Crl.M.A. No.11028/2014 in Crl.M.A. No.3177/2014

Exemptions, as prayed for, are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

These applications are disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.3174/2014 Crl.M.A. No.3175/2014 Crl.M.A. No.3177/2014

1. These petitions have been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 262/2012 under Sections 323/325/341/34 IPC; FIR No. 199/2012 under Sections 308/323/341/34 IPC; and FIR No. 264/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 IPC, all registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, on the ground that the matters have been amicably settled amongst each other.

2. Issue notice.

The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for respondent No.2 enter appearance and accept notice. All the parties, who are present in person, are also identified by the Investigation Officers.

3. In substance it is stated that the aforesaid FIRs came to be registered at the instance of two groups that live in the same locality and are stated to be the neighbours, residing at J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, New Delhi. While one group, admittedly, consists of Rattan Lal, Lalit, Ram Swaroop and Kanta, the second group consists of Pappu Gangwal, Raja Ram, Radhey Shyam and Amit Gangwal.

4. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in all the three matters, however, charge has so far been framed only in respect of FIR Nos.

192/2012 and 264/2012, where the prosecution is yet to lead evidence.

5. It is stated that the parties have since arrived at a settlement amongst themselves on 9th May, 2014. A copy of the said settlement is also annexed with this petition.

6. In addition, counsel appearing for both the groups have also expressed their joint desire to pay such further compensation and costs that this Court may direct.

7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since both parties belong to the same locality, and are immediate neighbours; and where the complainants are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution; it would be best to give a quietus to matters to enable the parties to live harmoniously with each other, subject to appropriate costs being paid by the parties keeping in view of the extensive involvement of the State machinery necessitated by the aforesaid complaints.

8. Under the circumstances, 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 considered opinion that it is best to give a quietus to the matter where the two groups have now reconciled with each other, and have settled all their disputes, subject to compensation; and where the complainants are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution.

9. Consequently, the petitions are allowed, and FIR No.262/2012 under Sections 323/325/341/34 IPC; FIR No. 199/2012 under Sections 308/323/341/34 IPC; and FIR No. 264/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 IPC, all registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject to the each group depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today. Proof of deposit will be filed in the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter, with a copy to the Investigating Officer.

10. These petitions are disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 AK/dr