Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar & Ors. vs State Of Delhi & Anr. on 3 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~20 & 35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 03, 2015
(i) + CRL.M.C. 3076/2015 & Crl.M.A.10956/2015
SURENDER KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Radhika Kohli, Advocate
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Raj Pal
Respondent No.2 in person
(ii) + CRL.M.C. 3102/2015 & Crl.M.A.11051/2015
SHANKAR SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. M. Sowri Dev, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Mukesh Yadav
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs, i.e.
FIR No.420/2015 [in Crl. M.C. No. 3076/2015] & FIR No. 421/2015 [in
CRL.M.C. 3076 & 3102 of 2015 Page 1
Crl. M.C. No.3102/2015], both under Sections 308/34 of IPC and
registered at police station Anand Vihar, Delhi is sought by petitioners on
identical grounds, therefore, the above captioned two petitions were heard
together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of.
Notice.
Ms.Nishi Jain and Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutors, accept notice for respondent-State and submit that
respondent-Shankar Sharma, present in court, has been identified to be
the complainant of FIR No.420/2015 by SI Raj Pal on the basis of
identity proof produced by him whereas respondent-Surender Kumar,
present in court, has been identified to be the complainant of FIR
No.421/2015 by SI Mukesh Yadav on the basis of identity proof
produced by him.
Respondents/complainants of these FIRs submit that the FIRs in
question got registered on a trivial issue due to some misunderstanding,
which now stands amicably cleared in terms of common Compromise-
cum-Settlement Deed of 9th July, 2015 and they affirm the contents of
their affidavits placed on record in support of these two petitions. They
submit that to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are co-villagers,
the 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
CRL.M.C. 3076 & 3102 of 2015 Page 2
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
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.
CRL.M.C. 3076 & 3102 of 2015 Page 3
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
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
CRL.M.C. 3076 & 3102 of 2015 Page 4
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
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
CRL.M.C. 3076 & 3102 of 2015 Page 5
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 the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact
the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIRs in question,
now stands cleared between the parties, who are co-villagers, this Court
finds that in order to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings
arising out of these cross FIRs deserve to be brought to an end.
Accordingly, the above captioned two petitions are allowed subject
to cost of `10,000/- per petition to be deposited by petitioners with Prime
Minister‟s Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record
the receipts of costs, cross FIRs, i.e. FIR No.420/2015 [in Crl. M.C. No.
3076/2015] & FIR No. 421/2015 [in Crl. M.C. No.3102/2015], both
under Sections 308/34 of IPC and registered at police station Anand
Vihar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed
qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly
disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 3076 & 3102 of 2015 Page 6
