Delhi High Court
Ram Prakash & Ors. vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 8 July, 2015
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 8th July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.No. 2678/2015
RAM PRAKASH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Prem Chandra, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Neeraj K. Singh,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Mr. R.S. Kashyap, Advocate
for the Respondent No.2 with
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No.9564/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CRL.M.C.No. 2678/2015
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.
769/2007 registered at Police Station Preet Vihar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 452/323/325/326/506/34 IPC and the
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners
on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent
No.2, namely, Sunil Kumar. After investigation, the police has filed
the chargesheet, charges have been framed and the case is pending for
prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, the parties have amicably settled
their disputes vide settlement dated 20.08.2014. Copy of the
settlement is annexed as Annexure P-5 to the present petition. He
submits that since the parties have settled all their disputes, therefore,
the respondent No.2 has no objection if the instant petition is allowed.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the State submits that since the parties have amicably settled the
matter and the respondent No.2/complainant is no longer interested in
supporting the prosecution, therefore, no useful purpose will be served
in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the
present petition is allowed.
4. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court with his
counsel named above. He submits that he has settled all the disputes
with the petitioners due to intervention of common friends and
respectable members of the Soceity and does not want to press this
case against the petitioners and has no objection if the present petition
is allowed.
5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to
a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable
offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement
between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant;
by observing as under:
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise
between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate and prompt attention of a court which should
endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
offender and the victim has been settled although the
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
factor."
6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes
in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed
by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations
of the Apex Court 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.
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. 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."
7. Both the parties, who are present in the Court today, approbate
the aforesaid settlement dated 20.08.2014, recorded before the Delhi
Mediation, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and undertake to remain
bound by the same.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of the
respondents No. 1 and 2 and the fact that the complainant is no longer
interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances
of success in the matter are now greatly diminished, therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus
as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
9. Consequently, FIR No. 769/2007 registered at Police Station
Preet Vihar for the offences punishable under Sections
452/323/325/326/506/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no
order as to costs.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for
the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JULY 08, 2015
sb
