Satish Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 6514 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Judgment delivered on: 2nd September, 2015

+      CRL.M.C. 3491/2015

SATISH KUMAR                                               ..... Petitioner
                                  Represented by: Mr. Pratap Singh, Adv.

                         versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR                    ..... Respondents
                   Represented by: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP
                   for State with ASI Darshan Kumar,
                   PS-Mianwali Nagar.
                   Mr. Rajveer Nainwal, Adv. for R2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A.12465/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

+ CRL.M.C. 3491/2015

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 163/2015 registered at PS-Mianwali Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 287/338 IPC against him.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, who received injuries in the accident took place in the factory of the petitioner on 04.03.2015. In the said incident, respondent no. 2

lost his four fingers besides other injuries. However, petitioner and respondent no. 2 has settled the disputes and the petitioner has agreed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2. Ld. Counsel further submits that apart from the compensation, the petitioner has undertaken to keep respondent no. 2 in his employment till respondent no. 2 wants to continue with him. Thus, respondent no.2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner.

3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the Court with his Counsel. He has been identified by ASI Darshan Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case. Ld. Counsel on instructions submits that respondent no.2 has settled the disputes with the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the respondent no.2 and remaining Rs.50,000/- has been paid today in the Court by way of Demand Draft being no. 500285 dated 25.08.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, Delhi. Moreover, the petitioner has assured the respondent no. 2 not to remove him from the service and he will continue in the employment of the petitioner as was agreed in the settlement dated 22.08.2015. Thus respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner and if the present petition is allowed, he has no objection.

4. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the case is at the initial stage of the trial. After investigation, challan has been filed without the arrest of the petitioner. Ld. APP further submits that though the parties have settled the disputes and petitioner has compensated

respondent no. 2 by giving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- however, in the accident in question, respondent no. 2 lost his four fingers. Therefore, the compensation is very less and if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR mentioned above, petitioner may be asked to compensate respondent no. 2 further.

5. In view of the overall circumstances; and looking to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another1, which 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; and also Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2 , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"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

(2012) 10 SCC 303

(2014) 6 SCC 466

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. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate to the aforesaid settlement dated 22.08.2015 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

7. Keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), settlement arrived at between the parties and the statement of respondent no. 2, I hereby quash FIR No. 163/2015 registered at

PS-Mianwali Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 287/338 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner.

8. Before parting with the order, I find force in the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor regarding further compensation to the respondent no.2. However, the petitioner who is present in Court has come forward and submits that he will pay further an amount of Rs.2 Lac to respondent no. 2 / injured. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of demand draft / pay order within two weeks to respondent no. 2 in addition to the agreed amount of Rs.1,00,000. Proof of the same shall be placed on record under prior intimation to the IO / SHO concerned.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

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

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 jg