Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 19 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~72 & 73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th January, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. 1160/2014 & Crl.M.A.No.3905/2014
LALIT KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, Advocate
alongwith Petitioners-in-person
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State
+ CRL.M.C. 1556/2014 & Crl.M.A.No.5288/2014
RAJA RAM INDORIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar & Mr. Ujjwal
Kumar, Advocates alongwith
Petitioners-in-person
versus
LALIT KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
With the consent of both the parties, these two petitions are
taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this
common order as the parties are same and both the petitions pertain
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 1
to one incident. Subject matter of above-captioned two petitions is
the incident of 6th September, 2009 pertaining to a dispute between
the parties which took place on a trivial issue i.e. children urinating
in the nalli (open drain) and the incident took an ugly turn leading
into filing of a complaint (filed by respondents of
Crl.M.C.No.1556/2014) under Section 307 IPC/323/341/506/34 /
120B IPC and the cross version on which FIR No.166/2009 under
Section 308/452/323/34 IPC was registered at Police Station
Jaipur, Delhi against petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1160/2014.
Quashing of aforesaid FIR case and complaint case is sought
on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 7th
February, 2014. Lalit Kumar, Ravinder and Deepak, present in
Court, are the complainant-party of the complaint case and are duly
represented by their counsel. In above-captioned first petition,
complainant-party/respondents No.2 to 5 i.e. Raja Ram Indoria,
Yasoda, Ajit and Ajay are present in person and identified to be so
by Head Constable Rajnish, on the basis of identity proofs shown
by them.
Complainant-party of the aforesaid FIR case and the
complaint case, present in the Court submit that incident in
question happened due to misunderstanding between the parties,
which now stands cleared and both the sides affirm the contents of
aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and their respective
affidavits and submit that to restore cordiality among the parties
the proceedings arising out of FIR and complaint case be brought
to an end.
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 2
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that
complainant-Lalit Kumar, present in the Court, had suffered simple
injury on his head which was given by a danda blow and so
cognizance of complaint case under Section 307/34 IPC was taken.
Learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance upon Apex
Court decision in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
(2014) 6 SCC 466 to highlight the parameters, which govern
quashing of FIR under Section 307/34 IPC, which are as under:-
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:
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 3
(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 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
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 4
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
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 5
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.
Applying the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court to the
facts of the instant case, I find that the injuries suffered by
complainant-Lalit Kumar does not come in the ambit of Section
307 IPC as there was no intention to inflict injury and the injured
was discharged from the hospital on the same day. Since the
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 6
incident in question had taken place on a trivial issue and the
misunderstanding between the parties stand cleared, therefore, to
restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the
proceedings against them ought to be brought to an end.
Consequentially, both the petitions are allowed and
proceedings emanating from the complaint case as well as FIR
No.166/2009 under Section 308/452/323/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Jaipur, Delhi shall stand quashed subject to deposit
of cost of `20,000/- by petitioners in petition No.
Crl.M.C.No.1556/2014 and `10,000/- by petitioners in petition No.
Crl.M.C.No.1160/2014 in Prime Minister Relief Fund within two
weeks from today and upon placing the receipts on record.
Both the petitions and application are accordingly disposed
of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
JANUARY 19, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.1160 & 1556 of 2014 Page 7
