Hari Saran Sharma & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1467 Del

$~61 & 62

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: February 20, 2015

+ (i)               CRL.M.C. 3364/2013
         HARI SARAN SHARMA & ORS.                .....Petitioners
                      Through: Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate

                          versus

         STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                  .....Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional
                                Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                State with SI Gopi Chand
                                Respondent No.2-Nahar Singh in
                                person

+ (ii)                    CRL.M.C. 3623/2013
         NAHAR SINGH & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                      Through:          Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate

                          versus

         STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                  .....Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional
                                Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                State with SI Gopi Chand
                                Respondent No.2-Hari Sharan
                                Mishra in person

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

%                          (ORAL)

CRL.M.C. 3364 & 3623 of 2013                                        Page 1

On the intervening night of 18th-19th July, 2005, a quarrel had taken place during the reception party at the house of Naresh Kumar and in respect of this incident, FIR No.281/2005 for the offences under Sections 452/323/147/149/34 of IPC was registered at P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi, whose quashing is sought in above-captioned first petition.

In pursuance of an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., FIR No.48/2006 under Sections 308/452/325/34 of IPC was registered at the aforesaid police station, whose quashing is sought in the above- captioned second petition.

Since aforesaid quashing is sought on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of.

Notice.

Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that complainant/injured persons-Nahar Singh and his wife and his three sons namely Manoj, Vikas and Vikram of FIR No.281/2005 are present in the Court and complainant/injured persons-Hari Sharan Mishra, Vivek, Naresh, Rahul and Nitin of FIR No.48/2006 are also present in the Court.

Complainant party of aforesaid two FIRs, present in the Court, has been identified to be so by SI Gopi Chand on the basis of identity proof produced by them.

Learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons submit that the antecedents of the parties are clean.

CRL.M.C. 3364 & 3623 of 2013 Page 2 Complainant party of aforesaid two FIRs, present in the Court, submits that all the disputes between the parties, who are neighbours, have been amicably resolved and the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared with petitioners-accused persons. Complainant party of aforesaid two FIRs affirms the contents of their affidavit filed in support of these two petitions and submits that now no dispute with petitioners-accused persons survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the FIRs 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:-

"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. 3364 & 3623 of 2013 Page 3 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. 3364 & 3623 of 2013 Page 4 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. 3364 & 3623 of 2013 Page 5 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 the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the incident in question took place on a trivial issue and that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIRs in question, now stands cleared between the parties and so, in order to restore cordiality

CRL.M.C. 3364 & 3623 of 2013 Page 6 amongst the parties, who are neigbours, I find that the proceedings arising out of the FIRs in question 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 four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipts of deposit of costs, cross FIRs i.e. FIR No.281/2005 under Sections 452/323/147/149/34 of IPC [in CRL. M. C. 3364/2013] and FIR No.48/2006 under Sections 308/452/325/34 of IPC [in CRL.M.C. 3623/2013] both registered at P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE
      FEBRUARY 20, 2015
      s




CRL.M.C. 3364 & 3623 of 2013                                       Page 7