Harpreet Singei@Rinkal & Anr. v. State & Anr.

2. These petitions seek quashing ofFIR Nos.17/17 and 18/17,registered under seetions 323/336/34 IPC r/w sections 27/54/59 ofthe Arms Act, 1959 and sections 308/323/34 IPC, respectively, at Police Station Nihal Vihar, 2018:DHC:8879 I Delhi. These are cross FIRs lodged by the respective complainants apropos minor misunderstanding between them being neighbours.

3. The learned counsel for the parties state that the Us has been amicably settled between the parties as per the Memorandum of Settlement/ Compromise Deed dated 30.10.2018, whereby the concerned parties have amicably resolved/settled their disputes, differences and grievances in order to put to end the ongoing litigation in these two FIRs. Since the complainants do not have a counsel, Ms. Meena Chaudhary, Advocate, present in the Court is appointed as their counsel for the day. The parties state thatthey would like to live peacefully as good neighbours.

4. The parties are present in the Court and have been identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer ofthe case. It is stated that in view ofthe fact that the parties have settled the Us amicably,it will be in the interest of justice to quash the FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in mind the decision ofthe 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,ifthe circumstances so warrant; by observing as under: "58 However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civilflavour 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 ofthefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework of its inherentpower, quash the criminalproceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justiceshall be casualty andends ofjusticeshall be defeated."

6. 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 & Am.2014[6] see466while obseiwing: "29. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down thefollowingprinciples 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 ofthe 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 in 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 theparties have reached the settlementand on that basis petitionfor quashing the criminal proceedings isfiled, the guidingfactor in such cases would be to secure: (i)ends ofjustice, or (a)topreventabuse oftheprocess ofany court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either ofthe aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such apower is notto be exercised in thoseprosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are notprivate 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 working in thatcapacity are notto be quashed merely on the basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having V overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out ofcommercial 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 ofconviction is remote and bleak and continuation ofcriminal 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 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 307IPC 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 307IPC is therefor the sake ofit or theprosecution has collectedsufficient 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 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 theformer case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings 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 thefact 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 ofsettlement play 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 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 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 casefinally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307IPC 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 proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofsparing a convictfoundguilty ofsuch a crime."

7. The Court is ofthe view that since the Us has been amicably settled, nothing further survives in these cases and both the FIRs have been denuded oftheir substratum and any further proceedings emanating therefrom would be an exercise in futility,therefore,in the interest ofjustice,the FIRs should be quashed.

8. In the circumstances, FIR Nos. 17/17 and 18/17, registered under sections 323/336/34 IPC i7w sections 27/54/59 ofthe Arms Act, 1959 and sections 308/323/34 IPC,respectively, at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

9. At this stage,the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as an expression of contrition for having caused unnecessaiy burden upon the administrative machinery engaged in the maintenance oflaw and order,the petitioners shall do some social work as may be assigned by the Court. Accordingly, the petitioners shall report before the Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, on 30.11.2018 at 11.00 am,who shall assign them duties of planting 50 trees each in the area abutting NFI-24 and the Ring Road, near the Millennium Bus Depot. The plants/trees shall be of deciduous indigenous variety with a nursery age ofthree and a half years, and a height of at least six feet. Depending upon the soil type and topography, the Director may consider the following types of trees for plantation:-