Vinod Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 4903 Del

$-48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Delivered on: 13th July, 2015

+                     CRL.M.C. No. 2735/2015

VINOD KUMAR & ANR                                   ..... Petitioners
            Represented by:             Mr. V.P. Katiyar, Advocate

                           Versus

STATE & ORS                             ..... Respondents
                      Represented by:   Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh,
                                        Additional Public Prosecutor
                                        for the State with SI Uma Datt,
                                        P.S. Mangol Puri
                                        Mr. Mohd. Shamim, Advocate
                                        for resp. Nos. 2 to 6
                                        Respondent nos. 2 to 6 in-
                                        person

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J.

Crl. M.A.9790/2015 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

+ CRL.M.C. 2735/2015

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 929/2015 registered at PS-Mangol Puri for the offences punishable

under Sections 304A IPC and 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 at the instance of the Police Officer of the said police station upon the information received that the deceased Jitender Tiwari was employed on 3rd May, 2015 as a machine man and while he was opening the starter of the machine with the help of screwdriver, he got electrocuted. He was immediately removed to nearby Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital by one of the employee where he was declared dead by the doctor.

3. The petitioners have compromised the matter with the legal heirs of the deceased, who are respondent nos. 2 to 6 in the matter, as per their free will and consent whereby the petitioners have agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 by way of compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Rs. 10,000/- has already been given in cash and the amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- has been paid by way of demand drafts in the name of respondent nos. 2 to 6.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are personally present in the Court and have been identified by the IO of the case. Though they are satisfied with the aforesaid amount for the reason that they are from very poor family. The respondent no. 2 is widow of the deceased having two minor children. Keeping in view the size of the family and the fact that none of the family member has any source of income, I, in the

interest of justice, ask the petitioners to pay more amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- each to respondent no. 2. The petitioners have come forward to pay the more amount as per directions.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that since the parties have amicably settled the matter and are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

6. 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:

"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash

the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

7. 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."

8. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the petitioners agreeing to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to respondent no. 2/widow of the deceased, I hereby quash the aforesaid FIR No. 929/2015 registered at PS-Mangol Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 304A IPC on 06.05.2015 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners.

9. The aforementioned amount shall be paid by Bank Draft in

favour of respondent no. 2 and proof of the same shall be placed on record with information to IO concerned.

10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.

11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) JULY 13, 2015 Sd/jg