Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 572/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 01, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 01, 2019
CRL.M.C. 572/2019
PRANATI SWAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocates
PRANATI SWAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT.OF NCT DELHI )& ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 2395/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 2396/2019 (delay)
There is delay of 320 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
Quashing of FIR No. 483/2014, under Sections 279/338 of IPC, 2019:DHC:694 registered at police station Delhi Cantt., New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit dated 17th February, 2018 (Annexure P-5) of respondent No. 2 and that the accident in question had taken place due to bonafide error of
There is delay of 320 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
Quashing of FIR No. 483/2014, under Sections 279/338 of IPC, 2019:DHC:694 registered at police station Delhi Cantt., New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit dated 17th February, 2018 (Annexure P-5) of respondent No. 2 and that the accident in question had taken place due to bonafide error of
JUDGMENT
.
Upon notice, Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, supports this petition and affirms the contents of his affidavit of 17th February, 2018 (Annexure P-5) and further submits that he has been duly compensated by petitioner and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
Since accident in question had taken place due to bonafide error of judgment and, therefore, continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `20,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of deposit of costs within a week thereafter, FIR No. 483/2014, under
Sections 279/338 of IPC, registered at police station Delhi Cantt., New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 01, 2019 p’ma
Upon notice, Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, supports this petition and affirms the contents of his affidavit of 17th February, 2018 (Annexure P-5) and further submits that he has been duly compensated by petitioner and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
Since accident in question had taken place due to bonafide error of judgment and, therefore, continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `20,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of deposit of costs within a week thereafter, FIR No. 483/2014, under
Sections 279/338 of IPC, registered at police station Delhi Cantt., New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 01, 2019 p’ma