Satvinder Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

1. This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 136/2018 registered under sections 323/341/34, at Police Station Sunlight Colony, Delhi, on a complaint made by respondent No.2 apropos a minor altercation having taken place betweenthem.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that with the intervention ofthe well-wishers, friends and relatives, they have settled the lis amicably. The complainant states that he does not wish to pursue with the complaint any further and would rather like to put the unfortunate past behind him. 2018:DHC:8816

3. 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 lis amicably, it will be in the interest of justice 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 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: 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 oj thefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework 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, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated. "

5. 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 6SCC 466 while observing: "29. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down thefollowing 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 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 exercisedsparinglyand with caution.

29.2. When theparties have reached thesettlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guidingfactor insuch cases would be to secure:

(i) ends ofjustice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse oftheprocess ofany court.

29.3. Such apower 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 working in 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, 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 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 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 307IPC in the FIR orthe charge isframed under this provision. It would be open to the High Courtto examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307 IPC is therefor the sake ofitortheprosecution 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 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.

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 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 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 courtwould 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 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."

6. The Court is of the view that since the Us has been amicably settled, nothing furthei sui"vives in this case and the FIR has been denuded of its substratum and any further proceedings emanating therefrom would be an exercise in futility, therefore, in the interest ofjustice, the FIR should be quashed.