Anil Kumar Poddar vs State Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 6905 Del

$~33
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       Judgment delivered on: 14th September, 2015

+      CRL.M.C. 3768/2015

ANIL KUMAR PODDAR                      ..... Petitioner
                Represented by: Mr. Kameshwar Mishra,
                Adv.

                      Versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                  ..... Respondents
                   Represented by: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP
                   for State SI Mohinder Kr., PS-Sultan Puri.
                   Respondent no.2 and 3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No.621/2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 363 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.3, wherein he stated that on 20.12.2012, his daughter Sulekha had not returned from her School. Accordingly, on 30.12.2012, he lodged a missing report with Police Station-Sultan Puri. Thereafter, the Police along with brother of respondent no. 2 reached the native place of petitioner and took back respondent no. 2 with them. At that time, respondent no. 2 stated the actual facts to the police and the police as well as the brother of the respondent assured the family members of

the petitioner that respondent no. 2 will be sent back after some time.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent no. 2 got married. However, since the marriage was not accepted by respondent no. 3, respondent no. 2 agreed to dissolve the same. Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on 30.01.2015 and the petitioner and respondent no. 2 made a joint statement before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, North-West District, Rohini Courts that the matter has been compromised between them and respondents shall withdraw the case mentioned above. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present petition with the consent of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

4. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are personally present in the Court. For her identification respondent no. 2 has produced Aadhar Card being no. 914127843865 (original seen and returned). Respondent no. 3 for his identification has produced Identify Card issued by Election Commission of India being no. UDL0985879 (original seen and returned). Both state that matter has been compromised between them and they have no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner. If the present petition is allowed, they have no objection.

5. On the other hand, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that case is at the initial stage of investigation and chargesheet is yet to be filed. Ld. APP further submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case are peculiar in nature and since, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have settled the disputes with the petitioner and have come forward to quash the FIR

mentioned above, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

6. 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.

(2012) 10 SCC 303

(2014) 6 SCC 466

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."

7. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate to the aforesaid settlement dated 30.01.2015 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

8. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, statements of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and ld. APP for the State and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra) and in the facts and

circumstances as noted above, 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.

9. Consequently, FIR No.621/2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section 363 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioner.

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)

SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 jg