Deepak Aggarwal vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1691 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5139/2015
                                  Date of Decision : March 02nd, 2016
    DEEPAK AGGARWAL                                         ..... Petitioner
                Through                 Ms.Garima Gupta, Adv. with
                                        petitioner in person.
                         versus

    STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS        ..... Respondents
                 Through   Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
                           State with SI Sachin Yadav, PS Sarai
                           Rohila
                           Ms.Annu Sharma, Adv. for R-2 & 3
                           with Respondent nos.2 & 3 in person.
        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. Deepak Aggarwal, Sh. Lalit Kumar,

Sh. Rahul and Sh. Gopal for quashing of FIR No.470/2014 dated

08.05.2014, under Sections 288/337 IPC registered at Police Station

Sarai Rohilla the basis of the settlement deed arrived at between the

petitioners and the respondent nos.2 & 3, namely, Sh. Mahesh Chand

Sharma and Smt. Mamta Sharma, respectively, on 10.08.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

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

identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question

by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question

was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that on 08.05.2014,

at about 6:30 pm, the wife of the complainant-respondent no.3 along

with the children was going to Shastri Nagar when a brick fell from

the roof of H.No. A-27, Shastri Nagar on the head of the son of the

complainant aged 8 years. The son and the daughter of the

complainant were admitted in the hospital and Ct. Vijay collected

their MLCs. The son of the complainant got discharged from the

hospital after first-aid. H.No. A-27, Shastri Nagar was under

construction and there was no compliance with any safety measures

by its owner.

The respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in question against the

petitioners. The charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and

the trial is pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the

parties arrived at an amicable settlement and resolved all their issues.

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

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

settlement deed, it is agreed that the petitioners got done the treatment

of the children of respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is also agreed that the

incident was an accident and that the same was neither intentional nor

deliberate. It is also agreed that respondent nos.2 & 3 shall make

appropriate statements before this Court for quashing of the FIR in

question. It is agreed that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall swear an

affidavit /NOC for quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed

that there is no ill-will left between the parties anymore. It is further

agreed that the parties shall not file/institute any proceeding against

each other in future and not to make any complaint against each other.

It is agreed that the parties have settled all their claims and disputes

against each other for all times to come in future. It is also agreed that

the parties shall not challenge the terms of this settlement deed and

shall remain bound by them. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 affirmed the

contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their affidavits dated

14.12.2015 supporting this petition. In their individual 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 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 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 offence under Section 288 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. 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.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.470/2014

dated 08.05.2014, under Sections 288/337 IPC registered at Police

Station Sarai Rohilla and the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 02, 2016 dd