Rama Arora & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5635 Del

$~13 & 22

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: August 05, 2015
+     CRL.M.C. 3131/2015
      ALOK KUMAR RANJAN                               ..... Petitioner
                      Through:     Mr. Prateek Mehta, Advocate with
                                   Petitioner-in-person

                          versus

      STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR                  .... Respondents
                    Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
                             Prosecutor for respondent-State
                             with SI Vijay Singh PS Civil Lines
                             Mr. Rajesh Mishra & Mr. Krishan
                             Kumar, Advocates with
                             Respondent No.2-in-person

+     CRL.M.C. 3145/2015
      RAMA ARORA & ANR                                 ..... Petitioner
                      Through:     Mr. Rajesh Mishra & Mr. Krishan
                                   Kumar, Advocates with
                                   Petitioners-in-person

                          versus

      STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR                  .... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                             State with SI Vijay Singh PS Civil
                             Lines
                             Mr. Prateek Mehta, Advocate with
                             Respondent No.2-in-person

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015                                  Page 1
                           JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No. 3/2009, under Sections 279/337 [in Crl.M.C. No. 3131/2015] & FIR No. 4/2009, under Sections 279/323/34 IPC [in Crl.M.C. No.3145/2015], both registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi is sought on the ground that with the intervention of common friends and well-wishers, parties have amicably settled their disputes. Since aforesaid cross FIRs pertain to one incident, therefore, with the consent of parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Ms. Nishi Jain and Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutors accept notice of these two petitions on behalf of respondent-State and submit that respondent No.2-Rama Arora [Crl.M.C.No.3131/2015] and respondent No. 2-Alok Kumar Ranjan [Crl.M.C.No.3145/2015], present in court are the first informant/complainant of FIR No.3/2009 & FIR No.4/2009 respectively and have been identified to be so by their counsel as well as by SI Vijay Singh on the basis of identity proofs produced by them.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that since both the parties belong to legal fraternity and with the intervention of senior members of Bar and their common friends, the misunderstanding which led to this incident has been cleared and all the disputes have been amicably settled. Both the complainants, present in the court, affirm the factum of settlement amongst them and also affirm contents of their respective affidavits of

Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015 Page 2 21st July 2015 and 14th July, 2015. placed on record, in support of these petitions and submit that to restore cordiality amongst them, 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 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

Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015 Page 3 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 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

Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015 Page 4 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 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

Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015 Page 5 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 incident in question, which led to lodging of these two FIRs, took place on a trivial issue and since, the parties belong to same fraternity and misunderstanding between them now stands cleared therefore, to restore cordiality amongst them, it is apparent that continuance of proceedings arising out of these cross FIRs would be an exercise in futility.

Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015 Page 6 Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to cost of `20,000/- each per petition to be deposited by petitioner(s) with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within one week from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR No. 3/2009, under Sections 279/337 [in Crl.M.C. No. 3131/2015] & FIR No. 4/2009, under Sections 279/323/34 IPC [in Crl.M.C. No.3145/2015], both registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
AUGUST 05, 2015
vn




Crl.M.C.Nos. 3131 & 3145 of 2015                                 Page 7