Delhi High Court
Poonam Kohli vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2016
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4948/2014
Date of Decision : February 05th, 2016
POONAM KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.K.Anand, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP.
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 petitioner, namely, Ms. Poonam Kohli for quashing of FIR
No.96/2013 dated 06.03.2008, under Sections 452/427/506/34 IPC
registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli on the basis of the Joint
Statement of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2, namely, Mr.
Ramesh Gupta on 26.11.2012.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent nos.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the First-informant/Complainant in the FIR in
question by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of this present case is that the FIR in
question was lodged by the complainant, namely, Harmugam on the
allegation that on 13.05.2013, he along with his friend Hira Lal s/o
Lakshman Ram were going to the RML hospital. When they were
crossing the road, while the complainant was stopping the traffic with
his hand signals, a driver-petitioner hit the friend of the complainant
i.e. Hira Lal as he was driving rashly with great speed. Hira Lal
suffered injuries on his leg and backbone. Thereafter, the family of
the petitioner started putting pressure on Hira Lal and his family
members to not take any legal action against the petitioner due to
which no action was taken by him against the petitioner on
13.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in question.
The police officials have filed a charge sheet and the matter is
pending before the Ld. M.M., Patiala House Courts, Delhi. The
respondent nos. 2 & 3 along with other legal heirs of the deceased
Hira Lal had also filed MACT claim petition bearing no. 192/2013
and they were awarded compensation of Rs. 15,80,640/- vide an
award dated 13.05.2014. During the pendency of the said
proceedings, the parties entered into an out of Court settlement.
4. Respondent Nos.2 present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
Joint statement, both parties have agreed to take divorce by way
mutual consent and the . Respondent nos. 2 & 3 affirmed the contents
of the aforesaid settlement and of their affidavits dated 27.09.2014. In
the affidavits, the respondent nos.2 & 3 have stated that they have no
objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and
differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no
dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of
the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statements of the
respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been recorded in this regard in which they
stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioner
and have settled all the disputes with him. They further stated that
they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. 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.
The respondent nos.2 & 3 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in
question and have stated that the matter has been settled out of their
own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised
amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of
law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. 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.
8. 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.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the
Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice
or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is
not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that the offences under Sections 279/304A
IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment
in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwise
satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statements made by the respondent Nos.2 & 3, the FIR in question
warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon
need to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.86/2013 dated
17.05.2013, under Sections 279/337/304A IPC registered at Police
Station Mandir Marg and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed against the petitioner.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2016
dd
