CRL.M.C./5154/2015 of SANJAY BHARDWAJ Vs STATE & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 5154/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 18560/2015

Date of Decision : April 1[st], 2016... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Arjun Singh Bhati, Adv.

SANJAY BHARDWAJ

versus

STATE & ORS.... Respondent

Through:Mr.Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP.Mr.Vishal Sharma, Adv. for R-2.

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. Sanjay Bhardwaj for quashing of FIRNo.167/2013 dated 22.06.2013, under Sections 324/34 IPC registeredat Police Station Pahar Ganj on the basis of the settlement arrived atbetween the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Vinay @Virender.

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 his counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant on the allegation that on 22.06.2013 atabout 10:50 pm, the complainant was standing near his brother

Ramesh Kumar’s cart, situated near PG Hotel. Montu and SanjayBhardwaj came there and asked the complainant to take off his shirt,at which point, Sanjay Bhardwaj held him and Montu hit him with asharp object as Montu wanted to place his cart at the spot wherecomplainant’s brother’s cart was situated. The complainant sufferedinjuries due to which he was taken to the hospital.

The FIR in question was registered against the petitioner andco-accused proforma respondent no. 3-Sh. Montu @ Mohit. Duringthe course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested andcharge sheet was filed against them under Section 324 r/w Section 34IPC. On 26.06.2015, the plea bargaining application was filed byrespondent no.3 and during the hearing of the same, the parties statedthat they have entered into compromise. The ld. plea bargainingjudge passed judgment and convicted the respondent no.3 for theoffence under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced him to simpleimprisonment till rising of the Court.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement,it has been agreed that the parties shall settle the matter without anyconsideration and that respondent no.2 has forgiven the petitioner andhe has apologized for the same. Respondent no. 2 affirmed thecontents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated30.11.2015, supporting this petition. In his affidavit, respondent no.2stated that he shall have no objection if the FIR in question were to bequashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved throughmutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the

proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Statement of the respondent no. 2 has been recorded in this regard inwhich he stated that he has entered into compromise with thepetitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further statedthat he has no objection 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 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.Respondent no. 2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question andstated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. As the

matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would bean extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedingsbetween the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the consideredopinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure theends 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 Section 324 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 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.167/2013dated 22.06.2013, under Sections 324/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Pahar Ganj and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

14.Application Crl.M.A. No. 18560/2015 is also disposed of.

APRIL 01, 2016

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE