Gulshan Kumar & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1345 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of Decision: 13th February, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 4386/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.358/2015

      GULSHAN KUMAR & ORS                    ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Ms. Sahila Lamba, Advocate

                            versus

      STATE & ANR                                              ..... Respondent
                            Through:       Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional
                                           Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                           State with SI Shri Gopal PS
                                           Shakurpur

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                            JUDGMENT

      %                      ORAL


      Quashing         of   FIR      No.      820/2006      under      Sections

420/448/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 25th July, 2013 (Annexure-P-2), which has been arrived at between the parties at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.

Upon notice, Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State appears and draws the attention of this Court to the

Crl.M.C.No.4386/2013 Page 1 status report filed on 13th October, 2014. Learned counsel for petitioners draws the attention of this Court to order of 21 st October, 2013 wherein it is recorded that respondent No.2, present in the Court had affirmed the contents of aforesaid Mediated Settlement (Annexure P-2) and had confirmed that she has been paid the settled amount of Rs.22 lac by petitioners and therefore she had given 'no objection' to quashing of FIR in question. In view thereof, vide order of 21 st October, 2013, proceedings before the trial court were stayed and the matter was adjourned to consider the applicability of Apex Court's decision in „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303 to the instant case.

Upon hearing, and on perusal of the status report of 13 th October, 2014, this Court finds that the FSL report referred to in the status report does not connect petitioners with the offences under section 468/471 of IPC so, the dictum of Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) does not stand in the way of seeking quashing of FIR in question. Apex Court in its recent decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 highlighted the parameters governing quashing of FIR proceedings. 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 Crl.M.C.No.4386/2013 Page 2 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 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.No.4386/2013 Page 3 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 liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the

Crl.M.C.No.4386/2013 Page 4 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."

Applying the dictum of Narinder Singh (supra) to the facts of the instant case and in view of the status report, Mediated Settlement (Annexure P-2), I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `1,00,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR

Crl.M.C.No.4386/2013 Page 5 No. 820/2006 under Sections 420/448/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE
FEBRUARY 13, 2015
vn




Crl.M.C.No.4386/2013                                               Page 6