CRL.M.C./5049/2015 of SONU & ORS Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 5049/2015

Date of Decision : April 19[th], 2016

SONU & ORS

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Avadh Pratap Singh, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS... RespondentThrough:Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP.Ms.Sucheta Kumari, Adv. for R-2 andR-3.

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 by

the petitioners, namely, Sh. Sonu, Sh. Devender Kumar, Sh. KaliCharan and Sh. Nanak Chand for quashing of FIR No.334/2013 dated04.07.2013, under Section 323/308/341/34 IPC registered at PoliceStationNandNagrionthebasisoftheMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)arrivedatbetweenthepetitionersandrespondent nos.2 & 3, namely, Sh. Dinesh Kumar and Sh. SudeshKumar, respectively on 11.09.2015.2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent nos.2 & 3, present in the Court have

been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by theircounsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant, namely, Radhey Shyam on theallegation that on 04.07.2013 at about 9:20 pm, while he was standingnear his house, Nanak Chand was passing from there along with hiscart. The vehicle of the son of the complainant was parked at thecorner of the street upon which Nanak Chand started to abuse him.Thereafter, Nanak Chand called his father, brother and maternal uncleand all of them started pushing the complainant. Both the sons of thecomplainant also came there and the above mentioned persons startedpelting stones at the sons of the complainant. Both the sons of thecomplainant got injured in the said act.

After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filedin the matter and the case is pending before the Court concerned. Onthe complaint of petitioner no.4, cross case was registered againstthe respondent nos. 2 & 3. With the passage of time, the differencesbetween the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 & 3 became normal andboth the parties are living in peace and harmony.

4.Respondent nos. 2 & 3 present in the Court submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with theintervention of common persons, relatives and respectable persons ofthe society. As per the MOU, it is agreed that the parties shallcooperate with each other in quashing of the FIR in question beforethis Court and compound the case FIR No.333/13, under Sections323/341/34 IPC before the Ld. MM. It is also agreed that the parties

have mutually agreed not to file any type of civil case, criminal caseagainst each other or their respective family members, includingrelatives. It is also agreed that in case either party backs out orcommits breach of the terms and conditions of the MOU, that partyshall be liable to be prosecuted under the appropriate law. Respondentnos. 2 &3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of theiraffidavits dated 01.12.2015 supporting this petition. In their individualaffidavits, the respondent nos.2 & 3 have stated that they have noobjection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes anddifferences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now nodispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statements of the respondentnos.2 & 3 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated thatthey have entered into compromise with the petitioners and havesettled all the disputes with them. 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 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 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 while

working 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 nos.2 & 3 agreed to the quashing of the FIR inquestion and have stated that the matter has been settled out of theirown 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 of

quashing.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 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 respondent nos.2 & 3, 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.334/2013dated 04.07.2013, under Section 323/308/341/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Nand Nagri and the proceedings emanating therefromare quashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

APRIL 19, 2016

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE