Ankur Alias Vicky vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 5388 Del

$~9
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            Judgment delivered on:29th July, 2015

+                        CRL.M.C. No.1028 /2015

ANKUR @ VICKY                                              ..... Petitioner
            Represented by:           Mr. Pardeep Khatri and Ms. Rimpy
                                      Khatri, Advocates with Petitioner
                                      in person.

                   Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.             ..... Respondents
              Represented by: Mr.Satish Kumar Verma,
                              Additional Public Prosecutor for
                              the State with SI Uday Singh, PS
                              Bawana.
                              Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 241/2012 registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 365/506/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sheetal Sharma, under some misconception, which is evident from the order dated 29.07.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) while admitting the petitioner on bail.

Moreover, the statement of the respondent No.2/complainant was recorded on 29.07.2012 by the learned MM, wherein she stated that the aforesaid FIR was lodged under misconception that her husband was kidnapped by the petitioner on 27.07.2012, however, he returned on the same very day.

3. Learned counsel further submits that apart from this the respondents No.2 and 3, informant and victim respectively, have settled their disputes with the petitioner and hence, do not want to pursue the case further against him.

4. Moreover, after completion of investigation, final report has been filed by the police finding no evidence against the petitioner. However, the same is not accepted by the learned Trial Court.

5. Respondents No.2 and 3 are personally present in the Court, who have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. The respondent No.2/complainant submits that since the complaint was made by her under some misconception, FIR in question was lodged against the petitioner. However, her husband, i.e., respondent No.3, returned on same day, thus, the petitioner has not committed any offence. While affirming the contents of their affidavits dated 12.05.2015 filed in support of this petition, the respondents No. 2 and 3 submit that now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the police has filed the final report fining no evidence against the petitioner, however, the same is not accepted by the learned Trial Court. Since the respondents No. 2 and 3 have come forward not to pursue the case further against the petitioner, the State has no objection if

the present petition is allowed.

7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 2 SCC (L&S)998, the Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, 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."

8. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 wherein held 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."

9. Keeping in view the law discussed above, the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, statements made by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and the fact that the respondent No.2/complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished, 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.

10. Consequently, FIR No. 241/2012 registered at Police Station

Bawana, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 365/506/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioner.

11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

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

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) JULY 29, 2015 sb