Delhi High Court

M/S Best International Projects ... vs State & Ors on 25 September, 2014

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

+     CRL.M.C. 4069/2014

      M/S BEST INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS PVT LTD
      THR. ITS DIRECTOR HARJEET SINGH ARORA ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate with
                              petitioner in person.

                            versus

      STATE & ORS                                         ..... Respondents
                            Through:   Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State
                                       with SI Ram Kumar, PS Parliament
                                       Street.
                                       Complainant in person.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%     SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 0123/2014 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on 29th May, 2014 on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person, and are identified by IO/ SI Ram Kumar, Police Station Parliament Street.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the

complainant alleging violation of certain terms of agreement entered into between the parties towards sale and purchase of properties. It is further alleged that the petitioner had cheated the complainant, inter alia, by fabricating documents. Thereafter, the parties are stated to have arrived at a settlement vide settlement deed dated 29th July, 2014.

5. On 8th September, 2014, counsel for the petitioner had handed over a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 2nd September, 2014 bearing No. 612427 drawn on State Bank of India to the complainant in Court, as the final instalment towards reimbursement of the complainant's principal. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to make a reasonable offer of compensation towards interest and costs to the complainant. To this end, the petitioner has today handed over a banker's cheque drawn on State Bank of India bearing No.612627 dated 15th September, 2014 in the sum of Rs.8,91,698/- towards simple interest calculated at 8% per annum from 7th February, 2012 to 29th July, 2014, along with proof of payment of TDS to the tune of Rs.99077/- on the said amount which has been duly deposited by the petitioner in the State Bank of India. In addition, the petitioner has today also handed over a bankers cheque for Rs.2,25,000/- bearing No.612752 dated 25th September, 2014 drawn on State Bank of India along with proof of deposit of Rs.25,000/- as TDS.

6. With the receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the complainant states that nothing further is due to him and that he has no further grievance with the petitioner. He further states that he is no longer

interested in pursuing with the matter and that the same be closed.

7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances and since the petitioner has compensated the complainant to his satisfaction, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings.

8. 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 the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the petitioner and complainant have amicably settled the matter and where the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished. Consequently, FIR No. 0123/2014 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on 29th May, 2014 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.