W.P.(CRL)/2524/2015 of SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs STATE & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 2524/2015SURINDER PAL SINGH

STATE & ANR

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%03.11.2015

Crl. M.A.16146/2015

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2524/2015

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.226/2015 (P.S. Janakpuri)instituted for offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was anagreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for sale and purchaseof their respective properties viz. flat bearing No.T-5-501 on the 5[th]Floorof Tower No.T-5 of Parasvnath Paramount building having an approximate

area of 1942 sq. ft. which belongs to respondent No.2 as well as the propertyof the petitioner namely the entire 2[nd]floor without roof rights of thefreehold built up property at plot No.132 in Janakpuri.

It was agreed upon between the petitioner and respondent No.2 thatthe properties belonging to them would be exchanged in favour of eachother and the balance consideration of Rs.75 lakhs would be paid torespondent No.2.

Pursuant to such an agreement, Rs.60 lakhs was paid to respondentNo.2 on different dates. The balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs was required tobe paid at the time of possession and execution of sale deeds of respectiveproperties of both the parties.

At that stage, some dispute arose between the parties and civil suitbearing CS(OS) No. 1727/2014 for specific performance was preferred byrespondent No.2. Simultaneously, FIR No.226/2015 was also lodged at P.S.Janakpuri against the petitioner. Pursuant to such FIR, the petitioner wasarrested but was granted bail.The matter was referred to the MediationCentre, Tis Hazari Courts while hearing the bail application of the petitioner.

At the Mediation Centre, the dispute was amicably settled and thepetitioner agreed to pay sum of Rs.65 lakhs towards full and final claim ofrespondent No.2. Out of the aforesaid agreed amount, sum of Rs.10 lakhswas paid forthwith whereas sum of Rs.43 lakhs was required to be paid inthe civil suit during the hearing of civil suit preferred by the petitioner.

It was further agreed upon that the remaining amount would be paid atthe time when respondent No.2 would facilitate the quashing of the subjectFIR (FIR No.226/2015) lodged at his instance.The balance amount ofRs.12 lakhs is now being paid to respondent No.2 by way of demand draft

in court. The same has been accepted. The respective obligations of theparties, pursuant to the settlement, have already been fulfilled.

Considering the fact that the dispute is completely inter personal innature as the parties had decided to swap their respective properties wherethe respondent No.2 had to get some money while exchanging his flat withthe property of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no usefulpurpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to be continued anyfurther.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, theSupreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable underSection 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of anycriminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justicedemands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end andpeace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only beordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab & Another (Supra):

“58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which haveharmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing thatseriously endangers and threatens the well-being of thesociety and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only becausehe and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that thevictim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes havebeen made compoundable in law, with or without thepermission of the court. In respect of serious offences likemurder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mentaldepravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude underspecial statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or theoffences committed by public servants while working in thatcapacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim

can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offenceswhich overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavourhaving arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,partnership or such like transactions or the offences arisingout of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim andthe offender and the victim have settled all disputes betweenthem amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences havenot been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframeworkofitsinherentpower,quashthecriminalproceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied thaton the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihoodof the offender being convicted and by not quashing thecriminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and notexhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and nohard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”[RefertoB.S.Joshi, (2003)4SCC675;NikhilMerchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16SCC 1.]

In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466,the pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and laydown the following principles by which the High Courtwould be guided in giving adequate treatment to thesettlement between the parties and exercising its powerunder Section 482 of the Code while accepting thesettlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing toaccept the settlement with direction to continue with thecriminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is tobe distinguished from the power which lies in the Court tocompound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Nodoubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court hasinherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even inthose cases which are not compoundable, where the parties

have settled the matter between themselves. However, thispower is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and onthat basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings isfiled, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:(v) ends of justice, or

(vi)to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form anopinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences ofmental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.Such offences are not private in nature and have seriousimpact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged tohave beencommitted under special statute like thePrevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacity are not to bequashed merely on the basis of compromise between thevictim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelminglyandpredominantlycivilcharacter,particularly those arising out of commercial transactionsor arising out of matrimonial relationship or familydisputes should be quashed when the parties have resolvedtheir entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is toexamine as to whether the possibility of conviction isremote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases wouldput the accused to great oppression and prejudice andextreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashingthe criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in thecategory of heinous and serious offences and therefore areto be generally treated as crime against the society and notagainst the individual alone. However, the High Courtwould not rest its decision merely because there is amention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge isframed under this provision. It would be open to the High

Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution hascollected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead toproving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For thispurpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by thenature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflictedon the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weaponsused, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered bythe victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basisof this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine asto whether there is strong possibility of conviction or thechances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the formercase it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash thecriminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would bepermissible 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 the fact that the settlement between the parties isgoing to result in harmony between them which mayimprove their future relationship.29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power underSection 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play acrucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived atimmediately after the alleged commission of offence andthe matter is still under investigation, the High Court maybe liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminalproceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason thatat this stage the investigation is still on and even thecharge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those caseswhere the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to startor the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court canshow benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, butafter prima facie assessment of the circumstances/materialmentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecutionevidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of theevidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normallythe High Court should refrain from exercising its powerunder Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial

court would be in position to decide the case finally onmerits and to come to conclusion as to whether theoffence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is alreadyrecorded by the trial court and the matter is at theappellate stage before the High Court, mere compromisebetween the parties would not be ground to accept thesame resulting in acquittal of the offender who has alreadybeen convicted by the trial court. Here charge is provedunder Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recordedof heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofsparing convict found guilty of such crime.”

Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having wide plenitudecould be used for quashing the FIR for securing the ends of justice and toprevent the abuse of the process of the court.

Keeping in mind the facts of this case and the settlement between theparties, allowing the criminal proceeding to be continued any further wouldnot be in accord with the guiding factor namely securing the ends of justice.

For the reasons aforerecorded FIR No.226/2015 (PS Janakpuri) andall the emanating proceedings thereof are quashed.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.

Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

NOVEMBER 03, 2015ns