Om Bir Gupta & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1653 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5303/2014 & Crl.M.A. 4842/2015 & 18082/2014
                                  Date of Decision : March 01st, 2016

    OM BIR GUPTA & ORS                                    ..... Petitioner
                 Through:               Ms. Astha, Mr. Shivender Kumar
                                        Sharma, Advocates
                         versus

    STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR                   ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
                           Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                           Inspector Sachin, Police Station Sarai
                           Rohilla, Delhi

           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, Sh. Ombir Gupta, Sh. Subhash Chand

Gupta, Sh. Devender Gupta @ Vicky, Sh. Ankit @ Vikas Gupta and

Sh. Hari Kishan Gupta for quashing of FIR No.261/2010 dated

28.07.2010, under Section 308 IPC registered at Police Station Sarai

Rohilla on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Sh.

Rajesh Sharma on 10.09.2014.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by SI Sachin Yadav.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant,

namely, Ct. Mamta, lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that

a PCR call was recorded in the daily Roznamcha that a quarrel and

beating took place in L-Block near Shiv Mandir Vatika Chowk,

Shastri Nagar, Delhi. On receipt of the same, the complainant along

with Ct. Rajesh reached the place of incident. The injured had already

been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital. At the place of occurrence, blood

was found and one stone with blood was lying nearby. No witness

was found at the place of occurrence. The complainant reached the

hospital and collected the MLC. The doctor stated that the patient is

unfit for statement.

On the basis of the FIR in question, the police implicated the

petitioners and the petitioners were admitted on bail. The police

however filed the charge sheet in the FIR in question for the offence

under Section 307/34 IPC although the FIR was registered under

Section 308 IPC. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicable

settlement and resolved all their disputes.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

MOU, it is agreed between the parties that the parties have decided to

live in harmony in view of the current settlement. It is also agreed that

they shall file a joint petition in this Court for quashing of the FIR in

question. It is also agreed that the parties shall provide complete

cooperation to each other and shall give their no objection to the

quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that they shall make

all necessary statements and/or file affidavit(s), as may be required by

the concerned Court for quashing of the FIR in question. Respondent

No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the

disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.

Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings

arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of

the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he

stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and

has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has 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 no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and

has stated that the matter has been settled out of his 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 offence under Section 308 IPC is a

non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in

quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied

that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted that

initially the FIR in question was registered under Section 308 IPC but

later on charge sheet was filed under Section 307 IPC on the basis of

circumstances without any medical evidence/MLC with regard to the

injuries.

12. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of

statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants

to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be

quashed.

13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.261/2010

dated 28.07.2010, under Section 308 IPC registered at Police Station

Sarai Rohilla and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed

against the petitioners.

14. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

15. The applications Crl.M.A. 4842/2015 & Crl.M.A.18082/2014

are also disposed of accordingly.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 01, 2016 dd