CRL.M.C./2074/2017 of CHANDER MOHAN MANAKTALA Vs THE STATE & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2074/2017

CHANDER MOHAN MANAKTALA

..... PetitionerThroughPetitioner in person with Mr. UmeshSingh and Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advs.

versus

THE STATE & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Addl. PP forState with SI Rajender Singh, PSMalviya Nagar.Ms. Mithu Jain, Mr. Sunil Fernandesand Mr. Arnav, Advs. for respondentno.2/BSES

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R R%22.05.2017

CRL. M.A. 8519/2017 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2074/2017

By the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. FIR no. 2331dated 31.12.2015 under Section 135 of Electricity Act is sought to bequashed on the basis of compromise/settlement arrived at.

Heard.During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the

respondent no.2 states that the petitioner has made payment of thecompromise/settlement amount and that, the respondent no.2 has noobjection, if, the subject FIR is quashed. Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg,Addl. PP equally states that he has no objection for the subject FIRbeing quashed.In Criminal Appeal No. 686/2014 titled NarinderSingh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., decided on 27[th]March,2014, Hon’ble Supreme Court set down the principles for exercise ofpower under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the following words :

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and laydown the following principles by which the High Court wouldbe guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlementbetween the parties and exercising its power under Section 482of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing theproceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with directionto continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) 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. Nodoubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court hasinherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in thosecases which are not compoundable, where the parties havesettled the matter between themselves. However, this power isto be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on thatbasis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,the guiding factor in such cases would 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 form anopinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such power is not be exercised in those prosecutionswhich involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravityor offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are

not private in nature and have serious impact on society.Similarly, for 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.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelminglyand pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arisingout of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonialrelationship or family disputes should be quashed when theparties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) 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.

............................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................”

Keeping in view the ratio of the judgment (supra) and totalityof the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that endsof justice would be met with, if, the subject FIR no.2331 dated31.12.2015,PSMalviyaNagar,isquashedalongwiththeconsequentialproceedingsemanatingtherefrom.ItisOrderedaccordingly. Petition stands disposed off.

MAY 22, 2017/rc

A. K. CHAWLA, J