W.P.(CRL)/34/2016 of SAGAR DAS & ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

$-51 &52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 33/2016 & Crl. M.A.225/2016

RANA PRATAP & ORS PetitionersThrough Mr.Nitish Angrish, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR RespondentsThrough Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC withMr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.ASI Manveer Singh PS Chhawla.Ms.Pooja Singh, Adv.

+W.P.(CRL) 34/2016 & Crl. M.A.227/2016

SAGAR DAS & ORS PetitionersThrough Mr.Nitin Angrish, Adv.versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR RespondentsThrough Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC withMr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.ASI Manveer Singh PS Chhawla.Ms.Pooja Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARORDER%08.01.2016

1. This Court shall dispose of W.P.(Crl.) 33/2016 & W.P.(Crl.) 34/2016by this common order as these cases arise from cross FIR's.

2. The petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 33/2016, seek quashing of FIR No.269/2015 (PS. Chhawala) instituted for offence under Sections147/149/308/323/34 of the IPC. On the other hand, the Petitioners in W.P.(Crl.) 34/2016, seek quashing FIR No. 270/2015 (PS. Chhawala) institutedunder Sections 147/149/308/34 of the IPC.

3. Both the parties seek quashing of the aforementioned FIR's on thestrength of an amicable settlement having been arrived at between them.

4. The abovementioned FIR came to be registered due to conflictwhich had occurred between the parties on 07.05.2015. The parties in theaforementioned petitions are known to each other as they are neighbours. Itis submitted that the dispute arose between parties due to certain waterboring work which was being undertaken by the petitioners in W.P. (Crl.)34/2016. The petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 33/2016 are said to have objected tothe said work and attempted to stop the same. This led to an altercationbetween the parties, pursuant to which the subject FIR's came to beregistered.

5. It is submitted by the counsels, on behalf of the parties, that due tointervention of common friends and relatives, the parties have agreed toamicably settle all their disputes and differences. In pursuance thereto, theparties had also approached the Delhi Government Mediation andConciliation Centre, Rohini, New Delhi for resolution of their disputeswhere both the parties entered into an amicable settlement.

6. The parties are present in Court.

7. The investigation in the matter is still continuing and the charge-sheets have not yet been filed.

8. It is submitted by the counsels of the parties that in view of all thedisputes between the parties having been amicably settled, no grievance nowremains to be adjudicated between them. In view thereof, the parties haveapproached this court to seek permission to put an end to the cases registeredagainst each other.

9. It is further submitted that the parties undertake to remain bound bythe terms and conditions of the settlement having been arrived at and havealso agreed to maintain good and cordial relations with each other.

10. 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 fruitfulpurpose would be served in any further prosecution. In view of theaforementioned facts, this Court is inclined to quash the subject FIRs.

11. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303,the Supreme 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.

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

No doubt, crimes are acts which haveharmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing thatseriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the societyand it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he andthe victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victimhas been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been madecompoundable in law, with or without the permission of thecourt. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity,etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC oroffences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like thePrevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacity, the settlementbetween the offender and the victim can have no legal sanctionat all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such liketransactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, wherethe wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and thevictim have settled all disputes between them amicably,irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been madecompoundable, the High Court may within the framework of itsinherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of suchsettlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender beingconvicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justiceshall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. Theabove list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case willdepend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can beprescribed." [Refer to B.S. Jos hi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; NikhilMerchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16SCC I.]

13. In Narimler 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, sum up and lay down

the following principles by which the High Court would beguided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement betweenthe parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of theCode while accepting the settlement and quashing theproceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction tocontinue 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 No doubtunder Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherentpower to quash the criminal proceedings even in those caseswhich are not compoundable, where the parties have settled thematter between themselves. However, this power is to beexercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on thatbasis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, theguidmg factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends ofjustice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process ofany court. Whileexercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion oneither of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions™ch involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravityor offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are notin nature and have serious on private impact society.Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed underspecial statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or theoffences committed by public servants while working in thatcapacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly_those matrimonial arising relationship out of commercial or family transactions disputes should or arising be quashedout of

when the parties have resolved their entire disputes amongthemselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examineas to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleakand continuation of criminal cases would put the accused togreat oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would becaused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPG would fall in the categoryof heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generallytreated as crime against the society and not against theindividual alone. However, the High Court would not rest itsdecision merely because there is mention ofSection 307 IPG inthe FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would beopen to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporationof Section 307 IPG is there for the sake of it or the prosecutionhas collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead toproving the charge under Section 307 IPG. For this purpose, itwould be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injurysustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegateparts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report inrespect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be theguiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, theHigh Court can examine as to whether there is strongpossibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remoteand bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept thesettlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in thelatter case it would be permissible for the High Court to acceptthe plea compounding the offence based on complete settlementbetween the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayedby the fact that the settlement between the parties is going toresult in harmony between them which may improve their futurerelationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play crucial role.Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately afterthe alleged commission of offence and the matter is still underinvestigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting thesettlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is

because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is stillon and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, thosecases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to startor the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can showbenevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after primafacie assessment 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 is atthe stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrainfrom exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as insuch cases the trial court would be in position to decide thecase finally on merits and to come to conclusion as to whetherthe offence 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 the appellatestage before the High Court, mere compromise between theparties would not be ground to accept the same resulting inacquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by thetrial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC andconviction is already recorded of heinous crime and, therefore,there is no question of sparing convict found guilty of such acrime."

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

15. The subject FIR's (FIR Nos. 269/2016 & 270/2016, PS. Chhawala)and the emanating proceedings thereof are, for the reasons aforestated,quashed. ^

16. The petitior^is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

JANUARY 08, 2016/ns