Delhi High Court
B K Neelima vs The State Gnct Delhi & Anr. on 7 April, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 07, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4952/2014
B K NEELIMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh & Ms. Vinita
Kumari, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE GNCT DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with WSI Pushpa
Respondent No.2 in person
+ CRL.M.C. 4942/2014
RAJESH JINDAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashutosh & Ms. Vinita
Kumari, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. . Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with Inspector Gurdev
Singh
Respondent No.2 in person
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.
129/2014, under Section 389 of the IPC and Section 66A of The
Information Technology Act, 2008 [in Crl. M.C. No.4952/2014] & FIR
No. 130/2014, under Sections 452/354/506/34 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C.
No. 4942/2014], both registered at police station Anand Vihar, New
Delhi is sought by petitioners on the basis of mediated settlement of 4th
June, 2014 (Annexure-P-2) reached through Delhi Mediation Centre,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Since quashing of the above mentioned two FIRs is sought on the
basis of common mediated settlement of 9th March, 2015 (Annexure-C),
therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
Upon Notice, Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2- Rajesh
Jindal is the complainant of FIR No. 129/2014 [in Crl. M.C.
No.4952/2014] & respondent No.2- B.K. Neelima Sharma is the
complainant of FIR No. 130/2014 [in Crl. M.C. No. 4942/2014] and
they are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so by
WSI Pushpa & Inspector Gurdev Singh respectively, Investigating
Officer of these cases. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State submits that trial of these FIR cases has not yet begun.
Both the complainants- Rajesh Jindal & B.K. Neelima Sharma
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
submit that mediated settlement of 9th March, 2015 (Annexure-C) has
been acted upon and the civil suit regarding the land-lord tenant dispute,
stands already compromised and the misunderstanding, which led to
registration of the FIRs in question, now stands cleared. The complainant
party of the afore-noted two FIRs affirm the contents of aforesaid
mediated settlement of 9th March, 2015 (Annexure-C) and they also
affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record in support of these
petitions. They submit that to restore cordiality between the parties,
proceedings arising out of these FIRs be brought to an end.
In „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases
like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or
continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put
to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction
to quash the criminal proceedings."
The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra)
are as under:-
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
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
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 to 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 the 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 predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
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 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 IPC 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 307 IPC 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 IPC. 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 latter 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
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 5
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
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 to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section
307 IPC 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 IPC 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."
In view of the fact that the misunderstanding, which led to
registration of two FIRs in question, stands cleared between the parties,
this Court finds that continuance of proceedings arising out of these cross
FIRs would be an exercise in futility.
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 6
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and proceeding
arising out of FIR No. 129/2014, under Section 389 of the IPC and
Section 66A of The Information Technology Act, 2008 [in Crl. M.C.
No.4952/2014] & FIR No. 130/2014, under Sections 452/354/506/34 of
the IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 4942/2014], both registered at police station
Anand Vihar, New Delhi are quashed qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.4952/2014 Page 7
Crl.M.C.No.4942/2014
