W.P.(CRL)/2904/2015 of MAHESH CHAND GARG Vs THE STATE (GNCT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

$-45 & 46

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 2903/2015SURENDER KUMAR AGGARWALPetitionerThroughMr.Yogendra Verma & Mr.NitinGarg, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

RespondentsThroughMr. Ashish Aggarwal,ASC withMr.Piyush Singhal, Adv.Mr.Arunav Tewari, Adv.

+W.P.(CRL) 2904/2015

MAHESH CHAND GARGPetitioner

ThroughMr.YogendraVerma& Mr.NitinGarg, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (GNCT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

RespondentsThroughMr. AshishAggarwal,ASC withMr.Piyush Singhal, Adv.Mr.Arunav Tewari, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARORDER%11.12.2015

Crl.M.ANo.18100/2015in W.P.rCrl.)2903/2015& Crl.M.A.18ini/2nTS

in W.P.fCrl.) 2904/2015

Exemptionsgrantedsubjectto alljustexceptions.

Applicationsstanddisposedof.

W.P.(Crl.)2903/2015& 2904/2015

The petitioners, in both the petitions seek quashing of FIR No.

168/2015 (P.S.Civil Lines) instituted for offence under Sections 420/34 ofthe IPG.

Thecomplainant/respondent No.2has alleged that he becameacquainted with the petitioners during the course of business dealings. Onone occasion petitionerSurinder Kumar Aggarwaloffered to sell hisproperty situated at Burari, Delhi for Rs.12,50,000/-.

Considering the price of the property to be less than the market value,the complainantreadily agreed for buying the same. He gave Rs.2,50,000/-to petitioner Surinder Kumar Aggarwal through three cheques which wereencashed on 16.02.2015. Petitioner Mahesh Chand Garg is alleged to havevisited the office of respondent No.2 and demanded more money.

Pursuant to such demand the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- topetitioner Mahesh Chand Garg by obtaining such amount from his friendnamely Gaurav Kohli. Again there was demand of Rs.50,000/- which alsowas immediately paid. Thus the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid bythe complainanttowards the sale price of the property at Burari.

The complainantwas made to understandthat the registrationof theproperty shall be done within two months of the payment of amount.

However,the accusedpersons namely the petitionersare said to have runaway after accepting said amount.

It is statedthat with the interventionof well wishers, an agreementhas been arrivedat betweenthe partiesafter compromise.Accordingto theterms of the agreement for settlement, it was agreed upon that thecomplainant would not pursue the case against the petitioners. Thecomplainant has been returned the agreed amount.

Considering the fact that the grievance of the respondent No.2 hasbeencompletelyredressedas also takinginto accountthe fact thatno fruitfulwouldbe servedin furtherthethis Court ispurposeprosecuting petitioners,inclined to quash the present FIR.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303,the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundableunderSection320 of the Cr.P.C.couldalso be quashed,when continuationof anycriminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justicedemandsthat the dispute betweenthe parties should be put to an end and is restored.But of such'criminalcould bepeace endingproceedings onlyordered for securingthe ends ofjustice.

The SupremeCourthas furtherobservedin Gian Singh(Supra):

"3SNo doubt, crimes are acts which haveharmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoingthatseriouslyendangersandthreatensthe well-beingofthe societyand it is not safe to leave the crime-doeronly becausehe andthe victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victimhas been paid compensation,yet certain crimes have beenmade compoundablein law, with orwithoutthepermissionofthe court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape,dacoity, etc., or other offencesofmentaldepravityunderIPCor ojfencesofmoral turpitudeunderspecialstatutes,like the

Preventionof CorruptionAct or the offences committedbypublicservantswhile workingin that capacity, the settlementbetweenthe offenderandthe victimcan haveno legalsanctionat all. However, certain offences which overwhelminglyandpredominantlybear civilflavour having arisen out of civil,mercantile, commercial,financial, partnership or such liketransactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,where the wrong is basically to the victimand the offenderandthe victim have settled all disputes between them amicably,irrespective of thefact that such offences have not been madecompoundable, the High Court may within the framework ofits inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of suchsettlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender beingconvicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,justice shall be casualtyand ends ofjusticeshall be defeated.The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case willdependon its ownfacts and no hard-and-fastcategorycan beprescribed."[Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; NikhilMerchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16SCC 1.]

InNarinderSingh & Ors. vs. StateofPunjab &Anr., (2014) 6

SCC466, the pertinentobservationsofthe ApexCourtare as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaiddiscussion, we sum up and laydown thefollowingprinciplesby which the High Courtwouldbe guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlementbetween the parties and exercisingits power under Section482 of the Code while acceptingthe settlementand quashingthe proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferredunderSection 482 of the Code is to befrom the which lies in the Court todistinguished powercompound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Nodoubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court hasinherentpower to quash the criminalproceedingseven in

those cases which are not compoundahle,where the partieshave settled the matter between themselves. However, thispower is to beexercisedsparinglyand with caution.

29.2. When theparties havereachedthesettlementandon thatbasispetitionfor quashingthe criminalproceedingsis filed,theguidingfactorin such caseswouldbe to secure:(i) endsofjustice, or (ii) to preventabuse of the process of any court.While the the Court is to form an exercising power Highopinion on either ofthe aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercisedin thoseprosecutionswhich involve heinous and serious offences of mentaldepravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Suchoffences are not private in nature and have serious impacton society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have beencommittedunderspecialstatutelikethePreventionofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servantswhile working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely onthe basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.29.4.Ontheotherhand,thosecriminalcaseshavingoverwhelminglyandpredominantlycivilcharacter,particularly those arising out of commercial transactions orarising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputesshould be quashed when theparties have resolved their entiredisputes among themselves.29.5.While exercising its powers,the High Court is toexamineas to whetherthe possibilityofconvictionis remoteand bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put theaccused to greatoppression and prejudiceand extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminalcases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fallin thecategory of heinous and serious offences and therefore are tobe generally treated as crime against the society and notagainst the individual alone. However, the High Court wouldnot rest its decision merely because there is mention ofSection 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge isframed under thisprovision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as towhether incorporation ofSection307 IPC is therefor the sake

ofitor theprosecutionhas collectedsufficientevidence,whichifproved, wouldleadto provingthe chargeunderSection307IPC. For this it wouldbe to the Courttopurpose, open Highgo by the nature of injury sustained, whethersuch injury isinflicted on the vital/delegateparts of the body, nature ofweapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuriessuffered by the victim can generally be the guidingfactor. Onthe basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court canexamine asto whether there is strong possibility ofconviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement andquash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case itwould be permissible for the High Court to accept the pleacompounding the offence based on complete settlementbetween the parties. At this stage, the Court can also beswayed by thefact that the settlementbetween the parties isgoing to result in harmonybetween them which may improvetheir future relationship.29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power underSection 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlementplay acrucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived atimmediatelyafter the allegedcommissionof offence and thematter is still under investigation, the High Court may beliberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminalIt is becauseof the reason that atproceedings/investigation.this stagethe investigationis stillon andeven the chargesheethas not beenfiled. Likewise, those cases where the charge isframedbut the evidenceisyet to startor the evidenceis stillatinfancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in its but after facieexercising powers favourably, primaassessment of the circumstances/materialmentioned above.On the other hand, where theprosecution evidenceis almostcompleteor after the conclusionof the evidencethe matterisat the stage of argument, normally the High Court shouldrefrainfromits under Section 482 of the exercising powerCode, as in such cases the trial court would be in position todecide the casefinally on merits and to come to conclusionas to whetherthe offenceunderSection307IPC is committed

or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction isalready recorded by the trial court and the matter is at theappellate stage before the High Court, mere compromisebetweenthe would the samepartiesnot be ground to acceptresulting in acquittal of the offender who has already beenconvicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved underSection 307 IPG and conviction is already recorded of aheinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofsparing aconvictfound guilty ofsuch crime. "

Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having wideplenitudecouldbe used for quashingthe FIR for securingthe ends ofjusticeand to preventthe abuseoftheprocessofthe court.

Considering the nature of accusation, settlement of disputebetween the parties and futility of allowing the investigationin thesubject FIR to be continued any further, the subject FIR (FIRNo.168/2015, PS Civil Lines) and all the emanating proceedingsthereof are quashed.

Boththe petitionsare disposedofin termsofthe aforesaid.

DECEMBER 11, 2015

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J