W.P.(CRL)/2598/2015 of RAJU @ RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 2598/2015

RAJU @ RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr.Charan Jeet, Adv. withMr.Mahesh Kumar, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Sanjay Lao, ASC.Mr.D.K. Santoshi, Adv. for R2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%17.12.2015

1.The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 35/2015 (PS Kalyanpuri)instituted for the offences under Sections 308/323/34/427 of the IPC on thestrength of an amicable settlement having been arrived at with the respondents.

2.The abovementioned FIR came to be registered due to brawl whichhad taken place between the parties on 11.01.2015. The petitioners and therespondents are known to each other as they are neighbours. The disputearose between respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1 due to parking of avehicle belonging to the complainant/respondent no.2. It is alleged that thepetitioners had hit the complainant, his son and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 withbricks, who had rushed to the spot for the rescue of petitioner no.1. It is dueto this incident that the subject FIR came to be registered.

3.It is submitted by the counsels, on behalf of the parties, that due tointervention of well wishers settlement has been arrived between theparties. They have submitted that all the disputes between both the partieshave been amicably settled, resolved and compromised to their respectivesatisfaction and in view of the same, both the parties do not wish toproceedings emanating from the subject FIR.

4.The parties are present in Court.

5.The investigation in the matter is still continuing and the charge-sheethas not yet been filed.

6.Upon conspectus of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of theopinion that the nature of the disputes between the parties are completelyinterpersonal and have been completely redressed. Furthermore no fruitfulpurposewouldbeservedinfurtherprosecution.Inviewoftheaforementioned observations this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR.

7.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.

8.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 victimcan 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 the

criminal 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.” [Refer to B.S.Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.]

9.In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC466, 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 Court wouldbe guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlementbetween the parties and exercising its power under Section482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashingthe proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to bedistinguished 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 partieshave 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: (i)

ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of anycourt. While exercising the power the High Court is to forman opinion 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 to havebeen committed under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servantswhile working in that capacity are not to be quashed merelyon the basis of compromise between the victim and theoffender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelminglyandpredominantlycivilcharacter,particularly those arising out of commercial transactions orarising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputesshould be quashed when the parties have resolved their entiredisputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is toexamine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remoteand bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put theaccused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminalcases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in 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 is framed under thisprovision. It would be open to the High Court to examine asto whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for thesake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,which if proved, would lead to proving the charge underSection 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to theHigh Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whethersuch injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect ofinjuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guidingfactor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the HighCourt can examine as to whether there is strong possibilityof conviction or the chances of conviction are remote andbleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlementand quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter caseit would 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 the fact that the settlement between the parties isgoing to result in harmony between them which may improvetheir 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 and thematter is still under investigation, the High Court may beliberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminalproceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that atthis stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheethas not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge isframed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is stillat infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence inexercising its powers favourably, but after prima facieassessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almostcomplete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter isat the stage of argument, normally the High Court shouldrefrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of theCode, as in such cases the trial court would be in position todecide the case finally on merits and to come to conclusionas to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committedor 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 compromisebetween the parties would not be ground to accept the sameresulting in acquittal of the offender who has already beenconvicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under

Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of aheinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing aconvict found guilty of such crime.”

10.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.

11.The subject FIR (FIR No. 35/2015, PS Kalyanpuri) and the emanatingproceedings thereof are, for the reasons aforestated, quashed.

12.The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

DECEMBER 17, 2015ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J