CRL.M.C./152/2016 of JAI NARAYAN GUUPTA & ORS Vs THE STATE & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C.152/2016

Date of Decision: March 18[th], 2016..... PetitionersThroughMr.Tarun Gautam, Adv.

JAI NARAYAN GUPTA & ORS

versus

THE STATE & ORS

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Izhar Ahmad, APP for the State.Inspt.Jaibir Singh, PS Farsh Bazar.Respondent nos.2 , 3 & 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 petitioners, namely, Sh. Jai Narayan Gupta, Sh. Naresh Gupta, Sh.Sanjay KumarandSh.MaheshGuptaforquashingofFIRNo.304/2015 dated 07.04.2015, under Sections 308/34 IPC registeredat Police Station Farsh Bazar on the basis of the compromise deedarrived at between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4,namely, Sh. Sunder Singh, Sh. Sonu and Smt. Kamla Devi,respectively on 07.07.2015.

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 and respondent nos. 3& 4 have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by

Inspector Jaibir Singh.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant on the allegation that approximately 6days ago, the complainant drooped some sand in front of H.No.4/2406, opp. Gali No.12, Bihari Colony, Near Main Road for thepurpose of repairing in his house. The complainant used some of thesand in repairing his house and some was lying on the road. On07.04.2015, at about 6pm, Jaynarain started abusing the complainantand he got angry and brought danda from his house and other co-accused persons also came with him. All of them mercilessly startedbeating the complainant. On hearing his noise, the son and the wife ofthe complainant also came there and they were also beaten up.

Later on, the matter got settled between the parties amicably.

4.Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 present in the Court, submitted thatthe dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thecompromise deed, the parties have agreed to live in peace with eachother. It is also agreed that the both parties are ready to withdraw alllitigations filed by them against each other with the due permission ofthis Court. It is also agreed that both the parties are ready to reconcile.It is also agreed that neither of the parties shall file any furtherltitigations against each other in future. It is also agreed that the partiesshall not make any hindrance and obstruction in the life of anotherparty. Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolvedthrough mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives andso, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an

end. Statements of the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 have been recorded inthis regard in which they stated that they have entered into acompromise with the petitioners and have settled all the disputes withthem. They further stated that they have no objection if the FIR inquestion 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 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 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 the

Court 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, 3 & 4 agreed to the quashing of the FIR inquestion and have stated that the matter has been settled out of their

own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromisedamicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process oflaw if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So,this Court is of the considered opinion that this is fit case to invokethe jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse ofprocess of law and to 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 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 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 Sections 308 IPC is anon-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment inquashing 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 ofstatements made by the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4, the FIR in questionwarrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereuponneed to be quashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.304/2015dated 07.04.2015, under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Farsh Bazar and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 18, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE