Hukamdin @ Chote Lal & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1769 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4890/2014
                         Date of Decision: March 04th, 2016
    HUKAMDIN @ CHOTE LAL & ORS
                                                ..... Petitioner
                Through: Ms. Nisha, Advocate


                         versus

    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
                                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:    Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                    Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                    Inspector Om Prakash, Police Station
                                    Badarpur, 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, Hukamdin @ Chote Lal, Ms. Hasina,

Shakti Arora @ Babbu @ Bobi and Fakruddin for quashing of FIR

No.137/2013 dated 22.04.2013, under Sections 308/452/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Badarpur on the basis of the settlement

agreement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2

to 7, namely, Sh. Abdul Hanif, Abdul Rehman, Smt. Hasanjadi, Sh.

Lajja Ram, Smt. Lambo Devi @ Prem Devi and Sh. Pappu,

respectively, 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 complainant/first informant and respondent nos. 3

to 7 have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by

their counsel.

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

lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that on 21.04.2013 at

about 10 pm, Fakru, Kallu @ Mohd. Asif, Hasina and Chhotu Khan

@ Kumuddin who is the brother of Hasina and Bablu @ Bobi came

near his jhuggi with lathis and started shouting and abusing loudly.

They all then attacked the complainant with danda on his head. Then,

Kallu @ Mohd. Asif attacked the brother of the complainant namely

Abdul Rehman and Hasina attacked his bhabhi namely Hasanjadi

with danda. After listening to voices, Lajjaram, Lambo Devi and

Pappu also came there. On that, Hasina attacked Lambo Devi with

danda and Chhotu Khan @ Hukmuddin gave a deadly blow with

danda to Pappu. Bablu @ Bobi attacked Lajjaram with danda on his

head and Kallu gave head blow with danda to Lajjaram.

The respondent no.2/complainant lodged the FIR in question.

The police officials filed the charge sheet against the petitioners.

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners entered into a

settlement agreement with Pappu, Hansraj, Happy @ Karamvir,

Abdul Rehman @ Abdul and Abdul Haneef.

4. Respondent No.2 to 7 present in the Court, submitted that the

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the

intervention of family and friends/relatives. As per the settlement, it is

agreed that the petitioners shall withdraw their complaint against Sh.

Pappu, Hansraj, Happy, Sh. Abdul Hanif and Abdul Rehman (party to

compromise called as 'second party') and shall cooperate in quashing

the FIR No.136/2013 pending against Sh. Pappu, Hansraj, Happy, Sh.

Abdul Hanif and Abdul Rehman. The second party also agreed to

withdraw their complaint against the petitioners and shall cooperate in

quashing of the FIR in question. Smt. Hasanjadi, Sh. Lajja Ram and

Kajal have also given their consent for the aforesaid compromise and

for quashing of both the FIRs. Both the parties have no claim in

respect of the aforesaid cases/complaints and both the parties

undertake that they will not write to any authority in connection with

or against the other party on any account. Respondent Nos.2 to 7

affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their

individual affidavits dated 16.10.2014 supporting this petition. As per

the affidavits filed by respondent nos.2 to 7, they have settled all their

disputes with the petitioners and 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. Statements of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 have been

recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into

a compromise with the petitioners and have settled all the disputes

with them. 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 to 7 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 the offences under Sections 308/452 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 to 7, 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.137/2013

dated 22.04.2013, under Sections 308/452/34 IPC registered at Police

Station Badarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 04, 2016 dd