Sharanjit Singh & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1674 Del

$~35

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: February 26, 2015

+            CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 & Crl.M.A.12751/2013
       SHARANJIT SINGH & ORS                     ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Mr. Ankur S.
                              Kulkarni and Mr. Shubham
                              Jaiswal, Advocates

                         versus

       STATE & ANR                                        .....Respondents
                         Through:      Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                       State with SI Manohar Lal
                                       Mr.Neeraj Choudhary, Advocate
                                       with Dr. Submeet Kaur, Power of
                                       Attorney holder of respondent
                                       No.2 in person

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No.641/2003, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 24th October, 2014 arrived at between the parties at Vienna.

Notice.

Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 Page 1 respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Neeraj Choudhary, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that Dr. Submeet Kaur, Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2, is present in the Court and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by SI Manohar Lal on the basis of identity proof produced by her.

Dr. Submeet Kaur, Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that she has been instructed by respondent No.2 to submit that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in terms of settlement, petitioner will instruct within two days Dr.Kathrin Hornbanger, counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 in Austria, to release Euros 7750, which is lying entrusted with her as per settlement, to Gurleen Sethi-respondent No.2/complainant.

It is also undertaken that upon quashing of the FIR in question and the proceedings emanating therefrom, petitioner No.2-Sandeep Singh will withdraw the case instituted by him before the Court in Vienna, Austria.

Dr. Submeet Kaur, Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2, submits that there is no objection to the release of `5 lac lying deposited with the trial court in the form of an FDR against No.BPFD No.835040 in the name of 'Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate' to petitioner No.1-Sharanjit Singh.

Both sides also undertake to abide by the settlement and also that they will not contact each other in future and that the cases, if any, instituted by either of the parties in India or abroad will be withdrawn

CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 Page 2 forthwith and that in future, they will not institute any other case against each other either in India or abroad.

Dr. Submeet Kaur, Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2, submits that she has been instructed to submit that divorce by mutual consent has been already obtained by the parties before the District Courts of Vienna, Austria.

Dr. Submeet Kaur, Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2, further submits that she has instructions to affirm the contents of aforesaid Settlement and of affidavit of 15th 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:-

"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)

CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 Page 3 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. 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.

CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 Page 4 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 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.

CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 Page 5 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 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."

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, CRL.M.C. 3481/2013 Page 6 which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.641/2003, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. In the event of either party defaulting in the undertaking given to this Court or not complying with the aforesaid Settlement of 24th October, 2014, then the aggrieved party would be at liberty to get this petition revived at the cost of defaulting party.

This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
      FEBRUARY 26, 2015
      s




CRL.M.C. 3481/2013                                                     Page 7