Rat Tfet Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr.

1 These petitions seek quashing ofFIR Nos.47/2018 and 48/2018 registered under sections 308/323/506/34 IPO and 341/323/506/34 IP, respectively,both registered atPolice Station Mianwah Nagar.These are cross FIRS lodged by the respective complainants apropos minor misunderstandingbetweenthembeingneighbours.

2. Thelearnedcounselforthepartiesstatethatthelishasbeenamicably narties as p6T Memorandum o settled between the parties P Settlement/Compromise Deed dated 04.04.2018 whereby the conceme parties have amicably resolved/settled their disputes, differences an 2018:DHC:8860 grievances in order to put to end the ongoing litigation in these two FIRs. The parties state thatthey would like to live peacefully as good neighbours.

3. The parties are present in the Court and have been identified by their respective counsel as well as by the I.O. ofthe case. It is stated thatin view of the 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 ofa settlement agreement between the offender and the victim,ifthe circumstances so warrant;by observing as under: "38 However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly hear 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 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, justiceshallbe casualtyandendsofjusticeshall 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 466 while 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 ofthe 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 reachedthesettlementandon that basis petitionfor quashing the criminalproceedings isfiled, theguidingfactor in such cases would be to secure: (i)ends ofjustice, 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 ojfences 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 workingin thatcapacity are notto be quashed merelyon the basisofcompromise 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 be quashed when theparties 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 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 the sake 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 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 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 482ofthe 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 ofsparinga convictfoundguilty ofsuch a crime."

6. The Court is ofthe view that since the lis 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.47/2018 and 48/2018 registered under sections 308/323/506/34 IPG and 341/323/506/34 IPG, respectively, both registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

8. Additionally, as a gesture ofgoodwill to the society,the petitioners in both the cases undertake to do some social work. Accordingly, all the petitioners in both the cases (except female and the minor petitioners) are directed to plant 100 trees each in of Delhi and for this purpose they are ^ directed to report before the Deputy Gonservator ofForests(East),GNGTD, on 05.09.2018 at 11.00 am, who shall assign them duties of planting 100 trees each in Gity Afforestation Programme or Gity Gompensatory Forest Schemes or other schemes as may be available. The trees shall be of deciduous indigenous variety and they shall be three years old or have a height of at least six feet. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed on or before 12.10.2018 along with photographs of the plantation in this regard, both by the petitioners as well as by the Deputy Gonservator of Forests (East)failing which,the case shall be listed for directions on 14.11.2018.