CRL.M.C./1312/2016 of AAKAASH ASTHANA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 1312/2016

Date of Decision: August 12[th], 2016

AAKAASH ASTHANA..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Jayant K.Sud, Mr.Vishal Dabas &Mr.Honey Khanna, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... RespondentThroughMs.Manjeet Arya, APP.Respondent No.2 to 4 in person.Respondent No.2 to 4 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. Aakaash Asthana for quashing of FIRNo.1511/2015dated10.12.2015,underSections279/337IPCregistered at Police Station Saket on the basis of Memorandum ofunderstanding executed between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2to 6, namely, Smt. Sanjeeda Begum, Sh. Shafik Ahmad, Sh. ShahrukhAhmad and Master Jameel Ahmad and Master Sameer Ahmad, bothunder the guardianship of respondent no. 2, on 10.02.2016

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 2 also asguardian for respondent nos. 5 & 6 present in the Court have beenidentified to be the LRs of the deceased/victim in the FIR in questionby SI Rajdeep Singh.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that on 13.12.2015, the

petitioner was going on his motorcycle “Rajdoot” bearing registrationno. URW 4387, from Malviya Nagar metro station towards MaxHospital, wherein Late Sh. Salim was crossing the road and theaccident took place between the him and the petitioner. The petitionertook Sh. Salim to Max Hospital. However, he was later transferred toAIIMS hospital. On 06.12.2015, when the victim was fit enough totalk, he told the respondents that the petitioner was not at fault. On08.12.2015/09.12.2015, victim developed septicemia and he was againoperated upon.

Thereafter, on 10.12.2015 the FIR in question was registeredagainst the petitioner on the basis of the statements made by HeadConstable Rajeev Kumar. On 12.12.2015, Sh. Salim Ahmad wasdeclared dead. An amicable settlement was arrived at between theparties during the pendency of the matter.

4.Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent no.2 on behalf ofrespondent nos.5-6 present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been amicably resolved. It is agreed that thepetitioner shall pay sum of Rs. 7 Lacs in toto to respondent nos.2 to6, LRs of Late Sh. Salim, in the manner enunciated in the terms of thesettlement out of which sum of Rs.5.3 Lacs shall be paid by him atthe time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is agreed that therespondents shall cooperate with the petitioner in getting the FIR inquestion quashed and shall also withdraw the cases, if any, filed bythem against the petitioner and also that they shall not file anycivil/criminal case against the petitioner with respect to this incident infuture. It is further agreed between the parties that after the execution

of this settlement, no claim, lien and dispute shall subsist betweenthem.

Respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent nos.5 & 6 throughrespondent no.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement andof their affidavits dated 16.03.2016. In the affidavit, they stated thatthey have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All thedisputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedingsarising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statements ofthe respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent nos. 5 & 6 throughrespondent no.2 have been recorded in this regard in which they statedthat they have entered into compromise with the petitioner and havesettled all the disputes with him. They further stated that they have noobjection if the FIR in question is 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.”

6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in arecent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC

466. 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 theproceedings 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 toprevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.The respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 2 on behalf ofrespondent nos. 5 & 6 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in questionand stated that the matter has been settled out of their own free will.As the 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 under

Section 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 therewould 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 tranquility 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 the

exerciseofpowersunderSection482Cr.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 279 IPC is anon-compoundable offence, therefore, there should be no impedimentin quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwisesatisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view ofstatements made by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent nos.5 &6 through respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to anend and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 1511/2015dated 10.12.2015, under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at PoliceStation Saket and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashedagainst the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

AUGUST 12, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE