Full Text
Date ofDecision: May 06, 2015 V.
Hr CRL.M.C. 1908/2014 SONIA & ORS.
Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Through;
Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
Statewith SI ShravanKumar Respondent No.5 inperson
Quashing ofFIR No.610/2013, under Sections 323/506/341/34 of the IPG registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis ofCompromise Deed of28'^ March, 2014 (Annexure- B) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration ofthe FIR now stands clearedbetween the parties.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondents No. 2to 4 have no role to play in this FIR case and due to inadvertence they have been impleaded and they be deleted from the array ofparties.
It is ordered accordingly.
Counsel for petitioners submits that the Amended Memo ofParties
Crl.M.C.No.1908/2014 Page 1 2015:DHC:11158 would be filed during the course ofthe day.
Let it be so done.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits hat respondent No.5, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Shravan Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.5, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Compromise Deed of IS'' March, 2014 (Annexure- B) and that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondent No.5 affirms the contents ofaforesaid Compromise Deedof28'^ March. 2014 (Annexure- B; and of her affidavit of21" April, 2014 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so. to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Courthas 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 oj iustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether 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
Crl.M.C.No.1908/2014 Page 2 affirmative, theHigh Courtshall be wellwithin itsjurisdiction to quash the criminalproceedings.'
The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recentjudgment in NariiulerSingh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6SCC 466.
The pertinent observations ofthe Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under;-
JUDGMENT
29. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, 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 its power under Section 482 of the Code while 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 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even m those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercisedsparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is fled, the guidingfactor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends ofjustice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process ofany court.
29.3. 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 Crl.M.C.No.1908/2014 Page 3 impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of 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 ovenvhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashedwhen the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility ofconviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put 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 mthe category ofheinous and serious 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 there foi the sake ofit or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which ifproved, 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 inflicted on the vital/delegate parts ofthe body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding Crl. M.C.No.1908/2014 Page 4 factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is astrongposs.b.hty of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak In theformer case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminalproceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissiblefor the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve theirfuture relationship. 29 7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 ofthe Code or not timings play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the Hig Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminalproceedings/investigation. It is because ofthe reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even tiae charge-sheet has not beenfiled Likewise, those cases wheie the charge isframed but the evidence is yet to start oi 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 between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal ofthe offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is Crl.M,C.No.l908/2014 Page 5 proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and therefore theie is n question ofsparingaconvictfoundguilty ofsuch acrime^ In the facts and oiionmstances ofthis oase, Ifind that continuance ofproceedings arisingoutoftheFIR inquestion wouldbe an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registrationofthe FIR, now stands cleared between the parties. Accordingly, this petition is allowed FIR No.610/2013, under Sections 323/506/341/34 of the IPC registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. This petition is accordingly disposed of. MAY 06, 2015 Crl.M.C.No.1908/2014 (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 6