Delhi High Court
Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Kapoor vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 22 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 22, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1804/2018 & CRL.M.A. 6443/2018
NITESH KUMAR @ NITESH KAPOOR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.M.P. Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor with SI Amit
Rana
Mr. Suhail Sharia, Advocate with
respondents No. 2 and 7 to 10 in
person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 671/2014, under Sections 284/287/304A of
IPC, registered at police station Swaroop Nagar, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Settlement-Agreements of 24th April, 2017 (Annexure-B) and
16th March, 2018 (Annexure- C) and affidavit of respondents No. 2 and
7 to 10 in support of this petition.
Upon notice, Mr. M.P. Singh, Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that Respondents No.2 and 7 to 10 present in the
Court, are the legal heirs of deceased Raju @ Sarfe Alam. It is submitted
that respondents No. 9 and 10 are the legal heirs of deceased Rahul, son
of Shri Ram Sakal Thakur, who are the complainant party/ first
informant of FIR in question and they have been identified to be so, by
SI Amit Rana and by counsel on the basis of identity proof produced by
them. It is pointed out that Respondents No.3 to 6 are minors, who are
represented by respondent No.2, their mother- Smt. Nagina, who is also
present in the Court. Respondents No.2 and 7 to 10 affirm the contents of
Settlement-Agreements of 24th April, 2017 (Annexure-B) and 16th
March, 2018 (Annexure- C) and their affidavits filed in support of this
petition and they submit that they have been duly compensated by
petitioner. It is stated that the accident in question took place as the
wooden plank (palli) had broken and as a result thereof, Raju and Rahul
had fallen into the chemical drum and had unfortunately died.
Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that after this
accident, petitioner has closed down his business of manufacturing flexible
binder and he would not be continuing with this business and to this effect an
undertaking by way of affidavit of petitioner would be placed on record
within a week from today.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs.
State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on
the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court
to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the
ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash
a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground
that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power
to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information
report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and
victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking,
not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for
serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar
as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,
the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being of the State have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in
declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the balance."
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that
petitioner cannot be squarely blamed for the accident in question and since
the legal heirs of deceased have been duly compensated, ends of justice
would be met if the proceedings arising out of this FIR are brought to an end.
Consequentially, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of ₹50,000/-
to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within four weeks from today and upon placing on record the receipt of
deposit of costs and also upon petitioner furnishing the undertaking in afore-
noted terms to this Court within two weeks thereafter, FIR No. 671/2014,
under Sections 284/287/304A of IPC registered at police station Swaroop
Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2019
v
