CRL.M.C./3346/2017 of AMIT CHAUHAN Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3346/2017AMIT CHAUHAN..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ajay P. Tushir, Mr. Anuj Gupta andMr. Vijay Bishnoi, Advs.Ajay P. Tushir, Mr. Anuj Gupta andMr. Vijay Bishnoi, Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

..... RespondentsThrough:Ms. Meenakshi Chuahan, APP forState with Insp. Pyare Lal, P.S. QutubMinar.State with Insp. Pyare Lal, P.S. QutubMinar.

Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. GautamChoubey, Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Ms.Aanchal Mittal and Mr. Anuj Nagpal,Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 inperson with her father.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%24.08.2017

By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.54/2014 registered at police station Qutub Minar Metro on the complaint ofrespondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has alleged in the FIR that petitioner washer friend and had been pestering her to marry him. On 23[rd]July, 2014,petitioner and respondent no.2 met at Kashmere Gate Metro Station at about8:25 am and boarded the train and went to Rajiv Chowk Metro Stationwhere petitioner broke his phone. Complainant tried to make the petitionerunderstand that they could not be together in future but petitioner kept

forcing her. While they were going to M.G. Road Metro Station thepetitioner said that he wanted to go to washroom, therefore, they got down atChattarpur Metro Station. While they were waiting for another train atChattarpur Metro Station petitioner pushed the complainant resultinginjuries to her.

It is submitted that petitioner and respondent no. 2 have now settledtheir disputes amicably after petitioner has explained the respondent no.2 histrue intention; that he thought that respondent no.2 was trying to commitsuicide in view of the altercations, which took place between them earlier,therefore, in order to save her he had put his hand around her waist but in theprocess both of them had tumbled down on the tracks. Respondent no.2 ispresent with her counsel and has been identified by Insp. Pyare Lal of policestation Qutub Minar Metro. Her father is also present with her. Respondentno.2 submits that she is now convinced that petitioner had no intention tokill her nor tried to commit suicide. She says that she has settled the matterwith the petitioner of her own free will and without any force, pressure orcoercion and is not willing to pursue the FIR any further and the same maybe quashed. and has agreed for quashing of FIR.

Statements of respondent no.2 as well as petitioner have been

recorded, on oath, separately.

In her statement, respondent no.2 has stated as under:-

“FIR No. 54/2014 under Sections 307/309 IPC was registeredat police station Qutub Minar Metro on my compliant on 23[rd]July, 2014. Petitioner-Amit Chuahan was known to me as weboth had studied in the same engineering college.Petitionerhad completed his M-Tech. We were friends. Petitioner hadbeen asking me to marry him.On 23[rd]July, 2014 we weretogether for quite some time. Altercations took place betweenme and petitioner. I intended to settle abroad and I told this factto the petitioner.We had taken metro train from KashmereGate at about 8:25 am and went to Rajiv Chowk Metro Station.Thereafter, we boarded the metro train for M.G. Road MetroStation, however, we got down at Chattarpur Metro Station aswe had some heated arguments. We were standing at ChattarpurMetro Station where train was coming at the platform and weboth fell down on the railway track as petitioner thought that Iwas trying to jump. He tried to hold me and in the process bothof us tumbled down and fell on the track.At that time, Ithought that petitioner tried to push me but later on, I haverealised, after discussions with him, that he was under theimpression that I was trying to commit suicide and for thatreason petitioner put his hand around my waist and hold me andin that process both of us fell down on the railway track.Presently, I am in Australia and pursing my masters in Bio-technology from there.The statement, contained in the FIR,was made by me out of some confusion and what I perceived atthat time. I do not wish to pursue the FIR any further havingcome to know about the true facts and the FIR may be quashed.I have made the above statement out of my own free will andwithout any undue force, pressure or coercion.”

In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (2) JCC

1360, Supreme Court has held as under :-

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay downthe 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 theCodewhileacceptingthesettlementandquashingtheproceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with directionto continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

distinguished 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, theguiding 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 arenot 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 bleak

and 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.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would fallin the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore isto be generally treated as crime against the society and notagainst the individual alone. However, the High Court wouldnot rest its decision merely because there is mention ofSection 307 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge isframed under this provision. It would be open to the High Courtto examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IndianPenal Code is there for the sake of it or the prosecution hascollected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead toproving the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Forthis purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by thenature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted onthe vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc.Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim cangenerally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facieanalysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is astrong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction areremote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept thesettlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in thelater 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 theirfuture relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power underSection 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play acrucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived atimmediately after the alleged commission of offence and thematter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberalinacceptingthesettlementtoquashthecriminalproceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at thisstage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet hasnot been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed

but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancystage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising itspowers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of thecircumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand,where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after theconclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage ofargument, normally the High Court should refrain fromexercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in suchcases the trial court would be in position to decide the casefinally on merits and to come conclusion as to whether theoffence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed ornot. 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 IndianPenal Code and conviction is already recorded of heinouscrime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing convictfound guilty of such crime.”strained

In the facts and circumstances of the present case more particularly

the statement of complainant recorded in Court today and reproducedhereinabove, in my view, possibility of prosecution resulting in conviction isremote. Petitioner and respondent no.2 are young. They are highly qualifiedand have long future ahead them. They have settled their disputes amicablyand without any undue force, pressure or coercion and respondent no.2 isnot willing to pursue the FIR any further. In these facts and circumstances,in my view, continuance of prosecution would be an abuse of process ofcourt. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 54/2014 under

Sections 307/309 IPC registered at police station Qutub Minar Metro and the

consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application

is disposed of as infructuous.

Dasti.

AUGUST 24, 2017ga

A.K. PATHAK, J.