Parveen Kataria v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 10 Nov 2014 · 2014:DHC:5819

Sudershan Kumar Misra

Crl.M.C. No.5021/2014

2014:DHC:5819

criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 323, 406, and 420 IPC based on an amicable settlement between employer and employee, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Full Text

Crl.M.C. No.5021/2014 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 5021/2014
PARVEEN KATARIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ravi Chawla, Advocate with petitioner.

VERSUS

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Sub Inspector Satyabir Singh.
Complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.17197/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed off.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR 203/2013 registered under Sections 323, 406, 420 IPC at police station Rajinder Nagar on 04.10.2013, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice. The complainant Ashok Kumar, who has been arrayed as respondent No.1, is also present in person and accepts notice.

3. The petitioner as well as the complainant, who are present in person, are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Satyabir 2014:DHC:5819 Singh.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged as a consequence of certain disputes arising between the complainant and his employer Praveen Kataria, the petitioner herein.

5. In connection with his employment, the complainant had invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 raising a dispute, which ultimately came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal where the matter was initially settled and the complainant rejoined his service with the petitioner on 15.03.2013. However, due to some further differences that arose once again between the parties, the complainant moved the criminal court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which ultimately led to the registration of the instant FIR 203/2013. At the same time, the complainant is also stated to have approached the Industrial Tribunal once again.

6. Ultimately, both the parties settled all their disputes in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, which was executed between the parties and attested by the Notary Public on 10.10.2014. The said Memorandum of Understanding has also been annexed to the petition. In terms of this settlement, the petitioner had agreed to pay the complainant a total sum of Rs.[2] lakhs in full and final settlement of all his claims. The said amount was to be paid in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs.[1] lakh was to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant at the time of withdrawal of his proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act; and the balance amount of Rs.[1] lakh was to be paid to the complainant when the instant proceedings are quashed by this Court.

7. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that out of the total amount agreed, Rs.[1] lakh stand paid to the complainant on 10.10.2014 itself with a view to persuading the complainant to also withdraw his application seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to the petitioner in this matter. Consequently, the complainant has also duly withdrawn the said application.

8. Counsel for the petitioner further states that now, only payment of Rs.[1] lakh remains, which amount has now been agreed to be paid to the complainant before the Industrial Tribunal when the complainant gives a statement withdrawing the proceedings pending before the Tribunal; and that the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding stands amended to that extent.

9. The complainant approbates the aforesaid terms and specifically acknowledges the receipt of Rs.[1] lakh, and states that he shall be withdrawing the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal, whenever required to do so, at which date he shall also receive the remaining amount of Rs.[1] lakh from the petitioner.

10. The complainant further states that he does not wish to pursue this matter any further and the same may be closed. The statement of the complainant is accepted by this Court and he shall remain bound by the same.

11. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the parties have amicably settled the matter, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the case; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

12. Consequently, and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under: “58.....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions 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 and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” And also in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“29. In view of the 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 between 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 criminal proceedings: 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the 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 in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.[2] When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

11,819 characters total

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.[3] Such a power is not 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 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 overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when 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 of conviction 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 Indian Penal Code would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the 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 prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for 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 their future relationship. 29.[7] While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement 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 High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet 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 of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code 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 of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have now amicably settled all the disputes which appear to have arisen out of master and servant relationship; and where the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the case, thereby diminishing success of any prosecution that may be eventually launched.

13. The complainant has also undertaken to withdraw his pending proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal in this regard.

14. Consequently, and for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.203/2013 registered under Sections 323, 406, 420 IPC at police station Rajinder Nagar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

15. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2014 dr

Parveen Kataria v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation