Delhi High Court

Ravinder Kumar & Anr vs State Of Delhi & Anr on 28 September, 2015

Author: P. S. Teji

$~22
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.M.C. 2095/2014
                                     Date of Decision : September 28th, 2015
       RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR                                    ..... Petitioner
                            Through:       Ms.Seema Sharma, Advocate.

                            versus

       STATE OF DELHI & ANR                                  ..... Respondent
                    Through:               Mr.Arun Kr.Sharma, APP for the
                                           State.
                                           SI Neeraj Kumar, PS: Mandavali.

              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, Ravindra Kumar and Vivek Hemmady for

quashing of FIR No.278/2010 dated 03.06.2010, under Sections

304A/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Mandavali Fazadpur,

Delhi on the basis of statements of the respondent No.2, namely,

Vijender Kumar and Sh. Shankar Raut, father of the deceased

Ramesh.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the respondent No.2 and Sh. Shankar Raut, present in

the Court, have been identified to be the complainant/first-informant

of the FIR in question and to be the father of the deceased,

respectively, by SI Neeraj Kumar.

3. Respondent No.2 and father of the deceased, present in the

Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been

amicably resolved as the father of the deceased had been paid a sum

of Rs.2,60,000/- as full and final settlement of the disputes including

the demand draft of Rs.1,10,000/- bearing No.001346 dated

18.03.2015 drawn on ICICI bank, branch Connaught Place, as

mentioned in order dated 30.04.2015 of this Court. Statement of

father of the deceased has been recorded in this regard. The receipt

of the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has also been placed on

record which shows that the father of the deceased received a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioners in the month of July, 2010. The

respondent No.2 corroborated the version of the father of the deceased

by making statement in the Court that by virtue of the settlement, the

father of the deceased has been paid a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- in full and

final settlement of the disputes. He also stated that he had no

objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Similarly, father of the

deceased has also 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 meet the ends of justice.

Admittedly, in the present case, neither intention nor the knowledge

has been attributed against the petitioners to cause the death of the

victim. The incident was informed by the informant, namely,

Vijender Kumar who happened to be next friend of the victim. The

offence under Section 304A IPC is not compoundable and the matter

has already been settled between the petitioners, informant Vijender

Kumar and the father of the deceased to whom a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-

has already been paid. As the matter has already been compromised,

there is no likelihood of any evidence to establish the rash and

negligent act causing the death of the victim against the petitioners.