Delhi High Court
Priyanka Overseas (P) Ltd & Ors. vs State Of Nct Delhi & Ors on 5 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 05, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2960/2014
PRIYANKA OVERSEAS (P) LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Saurabh Malhotra and
Mr. Faheem Shah, Advocates with
petitioners No.2 & 3 in person
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ajit Kumar Jha
Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Advocate
with Mr. Mohd. Maqsud, AR of
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.227/2009, under Sections 406/420/120-B of
IPC registered at police station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi is sought
on the basis of affidavit of Mohd. Maqsud, Authorized Representative of
respondent No.2 i.e. the complainant-Bank.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that aforesaid Mohd. Maqsud, present in the Court, has been identified to
be the Authorized Representative of respondent No.2 i.e. complainant-
CRL.M.C. 2960/2014 Page 1
Bank by his counsel as well as by SI Ajit Kumar Jha on the basis of
identity proof produced by him. He further submits on instructions that
the investigation of this FIR is complete and the charge-sheet has been
filed for the aforesaid offences, but the trial of this case has not yet been
begun.
Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that the subject
matter of this FIR arises out of a commercial dispute, which now stands
mutually and amicably settled with respondent No.2-complainant-Bank.
Mohd. Maqsud, Authorized Representative of respondent No.2,
present in the Court, affirms the factum of settlement and affirms the
contents of his affidavit of 12th May, 2014 supporting this petition and
submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question 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:-
"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
CRL.M.C. 2960/2014 Page 2
convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated."
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.
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.
CRL.M.C. 2960/2014 Page 3
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
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
CRL.M.C. 2960/2014 Page 4
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
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
CRL.M.C. 2960/2014 Page 5
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."
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, the status
report, affidavit of respondent No.2 and the material on record, I find that
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility as the subject matter of this FIR, which is essentially a
commercial dispute, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `1 lac to be
deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within three
weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No.227/2009, under Sections 406/420/120-B of IPC registered at police
station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 2960/2014 Page 6
