Parvej & Ors v. The State & Anr

1. These petitions seek quashing ofFIR Nos. 1832/15 and 1833/15 both registered under sections 308/323/34 and 308/324/34,respectively,at Police Station,Mangolpuri.

2. The learned counsel for the parties state thatthe lis has been amicably settled between the parties as per the Memorandum of Settlements/ Compromise Deeds dated 27.08.2018 and 25.08.2018,respectively,whereby 2018:DHC:8273 the concerned parties have amicably resolved/settled their disputes, differences and grievances in order to put to end the ongoing litigation in thesetwoFIRs. Theparties statethatthey wouldliketolive peacefully.

3. The parties are piesent in the Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer. Itis statedthatin view ofthefactthattheparties have settled the lis amicably,it will be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in mind the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab andAnother(2012)10 see 303, holding that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground ofa settlement agreement between the offender and the victim,ifthe circumstancesso warrant; by observing as under: 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 wrongis basically to the victim andthe offenderand the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective ofthefact thatsuch 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."

5. The amicable resolution of cases like the present one is an abiding objective. The dictum ofGian Singh(supra)has been affirmed bythe Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State ofPunjab & Anr. 20146SCC 466while observing: "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 ofthe 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 thesettlementandon that basis petitionfor quashing the criminalproceedings isfiled, theguidingfactor in such cases would be to secure: (i)ends of justice, or (ii)topreventabuse oftheprocess ofany court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either ofthe aforesaidtwo 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 overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character. particularly those arising out ofcommercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should he 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 notquashing 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 307IPG in theFIR or the charge isframed under this provision.It would be open to the High Courtto examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307IPG is therefor thesake ofitor theprosecution has collectedsufficientevidence, which ifproved, wouldlead toproving the charge under Section 307 IPG.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 ofsettlementplay a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediacy 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 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 m 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 ofthe evidence the matter is at the stage ofargument, normally the igh Court should refrainfrom exercising its power under Section 482ofthe Code,as in such cases the trialcourtwould be in a position to decide the casefinally on merits and to whether the offence under Section 40/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 thesame 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 ofsparinga convictfoundguilty ofsuch a crime." 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.

7. In the circumstances,FIR Nos. 1832/15 and 1833/15 both registered under sections 308/323/34 and 308/324/34, respectively, at Police Station, Mangolpuri and all proceedingsemanatingtherefrom are hereby quashed.

8. Atthis stage,the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as an expression of their remorse for the unfortunate incident and the trouble caused to the administrative machineiy engaged in maintaining the law and 01del,the petitioners are willing to do some social work as may be directed by this Court.

9. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to report to the Deputy Commissioner concerned of the North West Zone on 03.10.2018 at