CRL.M.C./82/2016 of NAVED & ORS Vs STATE ( GNCTD) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 82/2016 & Crl.M.A. No. 320/2016

Date of Decision : March 17[th], 2016

NAVED & ORS

..... Petitioners

ThroughMr.Sahid Azad, Adv.Mr.Anubhav Mehrotra, Adv.versus

STATE ( GNCTD) & ANR

..... Respondents

ThroughMs.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State.Mr.Dinesh, PS Jamia Nagar/SE.Ms.Meenu Sharma, Adv. for R-2.Respondent no.2 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 by

the petitioners, namely, Sh. Naved, Sh. Musahir Khan and Sh.Wajahat Ali @ Bhajji for quashing of FIR No.298/2011 dated17.06.2011, under Sections 324/341/427/506/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Jamia Nagar on the basis of Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) in view of the settlement arrived at between thepetitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Mohd. Azhar along withothers on 19.12.2015.2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the first-informant/complainant in the FIR in questionby the counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant on the allegation that on 16.06.2011 atabout 11:30 pm, he along with his friend Hashim was going to HajiColony on his motorcycle. When the complainant reached near theJamia College, three boys namely, Naved, Musahir and Bhajji camefrom behind in motorcycle and they stooped their motorcycle infront of the motorcycle of the complainant and they started beating thecomplainant. Naved attacked the complainant with sharp pointedweapon which inflicted injuries on his left hand and back. Thecomplainant got treated in the Holy Family Hospital.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filedagainst the petitioners. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicablesettlement and resolved all their issues with the intervention of well-wishers and common friends.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per theMOU, it is agreed that the all disputes and differences have beenresolved with the intervention of the elderly people from both sides,both the parties and their family members have amicably settled alltheir disputes out of Court unconditionally with their sweet will anddesire and they have withdrawn all their allegations against each otherirrevocably and do not want to proceed further against each other. It isalso agreed that both parties have agreed to withdraw their respectivecomplaints against each other and shall cooperate with each other for

quashing of FIRs before this Court by making appropriate statementsbefore this Court and the Trial Court as and when required.Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement andof his affidavit dated 05.01.2016 supporting this petition. In theaffidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that he has no objection if theFIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have beenresolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitionerssurvives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question bebrought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has beenrecorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into acompromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes withthem. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in questionis 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 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 no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question andhas stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. Asthe 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 underSection 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram

Anatrai 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 facts

and 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.298/2011dated 17.06.2011, under Sections 324/341/427/506/34 IPC registeredat Police Station Jamia Nagar and the proceedings emanatingtherefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

14.Application Crl.M.A. No. 320/2016 is also disposed of.

MARCH 17, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE