Praveen Sirohi vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1815 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5152/2015
                                    Date of Decision: March 08th, 2016
    PRAVEEN SIROHI
                                                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through:   Mr. R.P.Shukla and Mr. Dhananjay
                                    Singh, Advocates
                         versus

    THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
                                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:   Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public
                                    Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                    Inspector Arun Kumar, Police Station
                                    Fatehpur Beri.
           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, Sh. Parveen Sirohi for quashing of FIR

No.563/2015 dated 05.08.2015, under Sections 288/337/304A IPC

registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri on the basis of the

settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent nos.2

to 6, namely, Master Abhay, Baby Neetu, Master Nitin, Smt. Pari Bai

and Smt. Bhagi Bai (respondent nos. 2 to 4 being minors represented

through their mother i.e. respondent no.5) on 29.09.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the respondent nos.5 & 6 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,

namely, Head Constable Rajender Kumar Trivedi lodged the FIR in

question on the allegation that he received a DD No.16A and on

reaching the spot of the incident, the complainant got to know that a

demolition work was carried out at the building constructed on

H.No.57, New Mangolpuri, Delhi and the injured had fallen while

carrying out the demolition work at chajja, third floor and no eye

witness was found at the spot. The injured was admitted in the

hospital. No safety permission was taken while demolishing the

building and no safety equipment was provided to the labour working

at the site.

A case No. 563/15 under Section 288/337 IPC was registered

against the accused/petitioner. Subsequent to the registration of the

FIR in question, the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 to 6 amicably

resolved their issues.

4. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 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 petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to

respondent nos. 2 to 6 by way of demand drafts of Rs.1 Lac each to

respondent nos. 2 to 6. It is agreed that DD Nos. 468198, 468201 and

468202 dated 09.12.2015 for Rs. 1 Lac each drawn on Punjab

National Bank, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi in favour of

respondent nos. 6, 2 & 3 respectively, shall be paid by the petitioner.

It is also agreed that DD Nos. 432813 & 432812 dated 29.09.2015 for

Rs. 1 Lac each drawn on Punjab National Bank, Geetanjali Enclave,

New Delhi shall be paid to respondent nos. 4 & 5. Respondent Nos. 5

& 6 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their

individual affidavits dated 10.12.2015 supporting this petition. As per

the affidavits filed by respondent nos.5 & 6, they have settled all their

disputes with the petitioner 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 petitioner

survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be

brought to an end. Statements of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 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.5 & 6 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 288/304A 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. 5 & 6, 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.563/2015

dated 05.08.2015, under Sections 288/337/304A IPC registered at

Police Station Fatehpur Beri and the proceedings emanating therefrom

are quashed against the petitioner.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 08, 2016 dd