CRL.M.C./1228/2016 of ASHOK KUMAR SINGHLA Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 1228/2016

Date of Decision : May 18[th], 2016

ASHOK KUMAR SINGHLA

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Siddharth, Adv.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

..... Respondents

ThroughASI Shyam Sunder, PS MukherjeeNagar.

Respondent no.2 in person.

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 bythe petitioner, namely, Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal for quashing of FIRNo.610/2014 dated 15.06.2014, under Section 304A IPC registered atPolice Station Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the settlement arrivedat between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Shanti BaiAhirwaar.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has beenidentified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in questionby ASI Shyam Sunder.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question

was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that she resides in atemporary jhuggi and the contractor of the said area who had madethis temporary jhuggi is also supplying electricity through temporarynaked wires. On 14.06.2014, due to heavy rain, the jhuggi gotdamaged and on the next day, the husband of the complainant wastrying to repair the jhuggi when the naked electricity wire fell uponhim and he became unconscious. The husband of the complainant wastaken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. Thecomplainant and her husband had earlier many times asked thecontractor to repair the wire but he did not pay any heed to them.

Therespondentno.2alsofiledacasebeforetheLd.Commissioner for compensation against the petitioner. After thecompletion of investigation of the case, the challan was filed beforethe Ld. MM under Section 304A IPC against the petitioner.Thereafter, parties arrived at an amicable settlement with each other.4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement,the parties have settled their disputes for compensation of Rs. 4 lacsout of which Rs. 1 lac has already been paid on 16.06.2014 andbalance amount of Rs. 3 lacs shall be paid by way of cheque bearingNo. 030541 dated 17.03.2016 drawn on Bank of India, Ashok Vihar. Itis settled that after receiving the total amount of Rs. 4 lacs, therespondent no.2 shall withdraw the labour court case pending beforethe Commissioner. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of theaforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 21.03.2016 supportingthis petition. In the affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if

the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences havebeen resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitionersurvives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question bebrought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recordedin this regard in which she stated that she has entered into acompromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes withhim. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in questionis quashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ApexCourt has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61.In other words, the High Court must considerwhether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedingsorcontinuationofcriminalproceedingswouldtantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to anend and if the answer to the above question(s) is in theaffirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedingsorcontinuationofcriminalproceedingswouldtantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to anend and if the answer to the above question(s) is in theaffirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in

recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh(Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum upand lay down the following principles by which theHigh Court would be guided in giving adequatetreatment to the settlement between the parties andexercising its power under Section 482 of the Codewhile accepting the settlement and quashing the

proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Codeis to be distinguished from the power which lies in theCourt to compound the offences under Section 320 ofthe Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code,the High Court has inherent power to quash thecriminal proceedings even in those cases which arenot compoundable, where the parties have settled thematter between themselves. However, this power is tobe exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlementand on that basis petition for quashing the criminalproceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such caseswould 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 forman opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutionswhich involveheinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,for the offences alleged to have been committed underspecial statute like the Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants whileworking in that capacity are not to be quashed merelyon the basis of compromise between the victim andthe offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercialtransactions or arising out of matrimonial relationshipor family disputes should be quashed when the partieshave 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 no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question andhas stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. Asthe matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, therewould be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legalproceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdictionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law andto 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 provisionof law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process isabused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; wherethe process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid thecausing 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 theexpress provisions of law.

9.It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. VikramAnatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case ofInder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercisedsparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Courtcomes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there

would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is notexercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10.It is well settled law that where the High Court is convincedthat the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do notaffect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing ofsuch proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peaceand would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time andenergy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction inentering into compromise.In certain cases, the main offence iscompoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are notcompoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose ofsecuring the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be bar to the exercise of power ofquashing.In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified theexerciseofpowersunderSection482Cr.P.C.toquashtheproceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special factsand circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view thatnotwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 304A IPC is anon-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in

quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfiedthat the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view ofstatement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrantsto be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to bequashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.610/2014dated 15.06.2014, under Section 304A IPC registered at Police StationMukherjee Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MAY 18, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE