W.P.(CRL)/3213/2017 of SONU @ JITENDER & ANR Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 3213/2017

SONU @ JITENDER & ANR..... PetitionersThrough:Mr.AshokDrall,AdvocatewithPetitioners in person.

Versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR......Respondents

Through:Ms. Nandita Rao, AdditionalStanding Counsel (Crl.) for State withASI Subhash, P.S. Nihal Vihar.Mr.RajeshHadda,AdvocateforRespondent No. 2 with saidrespondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R R%20.11.2017

1.By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.444/2017registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi, for the offences punishableunderSections308/341/34IPCandtheconsequentialproceedingsemanating therefrom.

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit thatthe aforesaid FIR was registered as cross-case on the complaint ofrespondent No.2, namely, Mr. Sanjeev Khanna. The complainant and thepetitioners, have business relations with each other and the dispute aroseprimarily due to misunderstanding of business affairs.They have

apologised to each other and have accordingly made peace.

3.The complainant/respondent No.2 is present in the Court and has beenduly identified by his counsel. He does not dispute the submissions made bythe learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the present matterhas been amicably settled and that he has no complaints whatsoever againstthe petitioners, hence the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question maybe brought to an end.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of theState submits that the present matter is primarily in the nature of acommercial dispute and since the complainant does not wish to pursue thecase against the petitioners any further, no purpose would be served if thepetitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, ifthe present petition is allowed.

6.In the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in mind the decision of theSupreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10SCC 303, holding that even non-compoundable offence can be quashed onthe ground of settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, ifthe circumstances so warrant. It held:

“58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such liketransactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender andthe victim have settled all disputes between them amicably,irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been madecompoundable, the High Court may within the framework ofits inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of suchpredominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such liketransactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender andthe victim have settled all disputes between them amicably,irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been madecompoundable, the High Court may within the framework ofits inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such

settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender beingconvicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

7.The amicable resolution of cases like the present one is an abidingobjective. The dictum of Gian Singh (supra) has been affirmed by the ApexCourt in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC466 while observing:

“29. 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 Section482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashingthe proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. 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 inthose cases which are not compoundable, where the partieshave settled the matter between themselves. However, thispower is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. 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.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutionswhichinvolveheinousandseriousoffencesofmental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Suchoffences are not private in nature and have serious impacton society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have beencommitted under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servantswhile working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely onthe basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelminglyandpredominantlycivilcharacter,particularly those arising out of commercial transactions orarising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputesshould be quashed when the parties have resolved their entiredisputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is toexamine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remoteand bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put theaccused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminalcases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in thecategory of heinous and serious offences and therefore are tobe 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 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under thisprovision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as towhether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sakeof it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, whichif proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court togo by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury isinflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature ofweapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuriessuffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. Onthe basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court canexamine as to whether there is strong possibility ofconviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement andquash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case itwould be permissible for the High Court to accept the pleacompounding the offence based on complete settlementbetween the parties. At this stage, the Court can also beswayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties isgoing to result in harmony between them which may improvetheir future relationship.

29.7. 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 beliberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminalproceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that atthis stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where thecharge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or theevidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can showbenevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but afterprimafacieassessmentofthecircumstances/materialmentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecutionevidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of theevidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally theHigh Court should refrain from exercising its power underSection 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court wouldbe in position to decide the case finally on merits and tocome to conclusion as to whether the offence under Section307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases wherethe conviction is already recorded by the trial court and thematter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, merecompromise between the parties would not be ground toaccept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who hasalready been convicted by the trial court. Here charge isproved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already

recorded of heinous crime and, therefore, there is noquestion of sparing convict found guilty of such crime.”

9.In the circumstances, since the respondent/complainant himself doesnot wish to pursue the case against the petitioners any further, nothingsurvives in the matter. Keeping the FIR alive on the records when itscontents have been denuded by the compromise between the complainantand the parties concerned would be an exercise in futility. It would be in theinterest of justice if the FIR is quashed. Hence, the aforesaid FIR and allproceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

11.The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

NOVEMBER 20, 2017sb

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.