Sandeep & Ors v. State of Not of Delhi & Ors

1. These petitions seek quashing of FIR No. 0158/2018 registered under sections 354/354(B)/509 IPC at Police Station, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and FIR No. 0148/2018 registered under sections 308/323/34 IPC at Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, on a complaint made by the complainants/respondent nos. 2 apropos altercation having been taken place between them. The parties have settled the lis amicably vide Compromise Deed dated 10.10.2018. The parties are present in Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for 2018:DHC:8884 the complainants states, upon instructions, that the complainants do not wish topursue their complaint any further and would like the FIR tobe quashed.

2. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalfof the State submits that since the complainants do not wish to pursue their case against the petitioners any further, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if the petitions are allowed.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances andkeeping in mindthe decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab and Another (2012) 10 see 303, holding that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, ifthecircumstances so warrant; byobserving 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 ofthe 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 likelihoodofthe offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated. "

4. The amicable resolution of cases like the present one is an abiding objective. The dictum of Gian Singh (supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State ofPunjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 while observing: "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down thefollowing principles by which the High Court would he 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 thecriminalproceedings:

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 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 isfiled, the guidingfactor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends ofjustice, or

(a) toprevent abuse oftheprocess ofany court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either ofthe aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutions 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 Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while workingin that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, u rparticularly 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 IPG would fall in the 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 IPG 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 307IPG is therefor thesake ofit or theprosecution has collectedsufficientevidence, which ifproved, would lead toproving the charge underSection 307 IPG. 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 guidingfactor. 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 ofconviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter 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 theirfuture relationship. h

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 he 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 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 a position 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 of the offender who has already 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 ofsparing a convictfound guilty ofsuch a crime. "

5. Since the complainants themselves do not wish to pursue their complaints against the petitioners, the substratum of the complaints/FIRs dissipates and any further proceeding apropos the same FIRs would be an exercise in futility. It would therefore be in the interest ofjustice that the FIRs be quashed. Accordingly, FIR No. 0158/2018 registered under sections 354/354(B)/509 IPG at Police Station, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and FIR No. 0148/2018 registered under sections 308/323/34 IPG at Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as an expression of the contrition ofthe petitioners for them having caused the unnecessary burden upon the administrative machineiy engaged in the maintenance of law and order, the petitioners shall do some social work as may be assigned by the Gourt. Accordingly, the petitioners shall report before the Deputy Gonservator ofForests (East), GNGTD, on 21.12.2018 at