Full Text
Date ofDecision: August 07, 2015
VIJAY GOEL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Through; Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with Inspector Sanjeev Arora Mr. Narendra Gautam, Advocate with Respondent No.2-in-person
JUDGMENT
Quashing of FIR No.214/2013 under Sections 448/380/451/506
IPC registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed of l?"" November, 2014 (Annexure B) and on the ground that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by his counsel as well as by Inspector Sanjeev Arora on the basis of identity proofproduced by him.
Crl.M.C.No.5926/2014 Page 1 2015:DHC:11273 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that out of the total settled amount ofT2 lac, an amount of?1.7 lac is being paid today and balance amount of?30,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.2 when he withdraws his complaint under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties in terms of aforesaid Compromise
Deed and that he has received ^1.70 lac by way of demand draft bearing
No. 599116 drawn on Indus Ind Bank out of the total settled amount of
?2 lac. Respondent No.2 submits that he shall withdraw the complaint filed under Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents ofaforesaid Compromise Deedond ofhis affidavit of7^^ August, 2015 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under;-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse ofprocess oflaw despite settlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer andwhether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and ifthe answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction toquash the criminalproceedings. "
Crl.M.C.No.5926/2014 2 The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6SCC 466.
The pertinent observations ofthe Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under;-
29. In view oj the aforesaiddiscussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement bet^veen the parties and exercising itspower under Section 482 of the Code M'hile accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement ^ with direction to continue with the criminalproceedings: 29.[1] Power conferred under Section 482 ofthe Code is 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 the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power isto be exercisedsparingly andwith caution. 29.[2] When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petitionfor quashing the criminal proceedings is filed the guidingfactor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends ofJustice, or ^ (ii) to prevent abuse oftheprocess ofany court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either ofthe aforesaid t^vo objectives.
293. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society>. Similarly for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Crl.M.C.No.5926/2014 Pages Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out ofcommercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when theparties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to M^hether the possibility ofconviction is remote and bleak and continuation ofcriminal cases wouldput the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category ofheinous andserious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge isframed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307 IPC is therefor the sake ofit or the prosecution has collectedsufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section^ 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature ofinjury sustained, whether such injury^ is inflictedon the vital/delegateparts ofthe body nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this primafacie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is astrongpossibility Crl.M.C.No.5926/2014 Page 4 of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleat /„ the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement andquash the criminalproceedings whereas in the latter case It would be permissiblefor the High Court to accept theplea compounding the offence based on complete settlement bet^veen the parties At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement betyveen the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve theirfliture relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 ofthe Code or not, timings ofsettlementplay a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission ofoffence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because ofthe reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage ofargument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 ofthe Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in aposition to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise bet\veen the parties would not be a ground to Pages accept the same resulting in acquittal ofthe offender who has ah-eady been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofspatting aconvictfoundguilty ofsuch acrime. " In the facts and circumstances ofthis case and in view ofaforesaid affidavit of respondent No.2 and settlement having been arrived at between the parties, Ifind that continuance ofproceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of^25,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's ReliefFund Wiihin two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR No.214/2013 under Sections 448/380/451/506 IPC registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner. This petition is accordingly disposed of AUGUST 07, 2015 vn (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 6