Mohan Lal Mehta & Ors vs State & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 7757 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 2700/2014 & Crl.M.A. 9019/2014
                                   Date of Decision: October 09th, 2015


    MOHAN LAL MEHTA & ORS                             ..... Petitioners
                         Through   Mr.A.K. Mishra, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE & ANR                                       ..... Respondents
                         Through   Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP.
                                   Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv. for R-2 with
                                   respondent No.2 in person.
                                   SI Brij Singh, PS Seelam Pur.

           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta, Deepak Mehta,

Smt. Kusum Lata, Manish Mehta and Lokesh Mehta for quashing of

FIR No.406/2012 dated 19.11.2012, under Section 3(1)(10) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 registered at Police Station Seelam Pur on the basis of the

settlement dated 26.02.2014 arrived at before the Mediation &

Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court between the petitioners and the

respondent no.2 namely, Sh. Mukesh Kumar.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the complainant/first-informant respondent No.2,

present in the Court has been identified by his counsel.

3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as per the

compromise deed wherein it is stated that the parties with the

assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an

amicable solution resolving the disputes and differences. Respondent

no.2 has no grievances against the petitioners. Respondent No.2

affirms the contents of the present petition and of the settlement deed.

All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual

consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the

proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in

which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the

petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further

stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

4. In Gian Singh v. 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."

5. 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 relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh

(Supra) 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."

6. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to

prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

In the present case, the respondent no. 2 has reconciled all his disputes

with the petitioners without any pressure, coercion or inducement.

The parties are neighbors since last 40 years and have agreed to

maintain peace and harmony and not litigate with each other any

further in respect of the complaints made by them against each other.

As the matter has already been compromised, there would be an

extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings

between the parties are carried on. The parties have already settled

down the matter. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this

is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to

prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

7. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision

of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is

abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured;

where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to

avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision

of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of

justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to

circumvent the express provisions of law.

8. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of

statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants

to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be

quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.406/2012

dated 19.11.2012, under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at

Police Station Seelam Pur and the proceedings emanating therefrom

are quashed against the petitioners.

10. This petition and pending application are accordingly disposed

of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 09, 2015 dd