Subhash Raturi And Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 6537 Del

$~34
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Judgment delivered on: 2nd September, 2015

+      CRL.M.C. 3596/2015

SUBHASH RATURI AND ORS                      ..... Petitioners
                 Represented by: Mr. Yashvardhan and
                 Mr. Piyush Singh, Advs.

                         Versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR            .....Respondents
                  Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,
                  APP for State with SI Ashwani Kumar,
                  PS-Naraina.
                  Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Adv. for R2 with
                  respondent no. 2 in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. Nos. 12771/2015 and 12772/2015 (for exemptions) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the applications are allowed.

+ CRL.M.C. 3596/2015

1. Vide the present petition; petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 401/2015 registered at PS-Naraina for the offences punishable under Sections 380/403/448/506/34/120B IPC against them.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent

No.2, Mr. Lalit Jaisingh. The case is at the initial state of investigation. Meanwhile, petitioners and respondent no.2 have entered into an agreement dated 06.08.2015 whereby the petitioners and respondent no.2 have settled their disputes amicably. Thus, respondent no.2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners.

3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the Court with his Counsel. He has been identified by SI Ashwani Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case. Ld. Counsel on instructions submits that matter has been settled between the parties vide MOU noted above and respondent no. 2 has no complaint whatsoever against the petitioners. 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 petitioners were enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.08.2015 subject to the condition that they will join the investigation. However, they have not joined the investigation till date. Ld. APP further submits that since respondent no. 2 has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and has come forward to quash the FIR mentioned above, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

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 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.

(2012) 10 SCC 303

(2014) 6 SCC 466

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 06.08.2015 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. 401/2015 registered at PS- Naraina for the offences punishable under Sections 380/403/448/506/34/120B IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

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

Crl. M.C. 12770/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 jg