Kanisk Jhanji @ Aryan v. State & Anr

2. Learned xAdditional -rPubiic^RfbsecutoE'' for respondent-State submitted that the Yes^pndehi!no.,rl-gpf|sg the Court has been identified to be the complainanEfirst informant in the FIR in question by HC Rajesh Kumar.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 09.11.2014 the complainant was travelling by his car of name and make Renault Duster bearing no. DL 3C CC 3913 and was returning to his Hostel when a car bearing No. DDV-100 BMW, being driven negligently, hit the car of the complainant. The person driving the car bearing no.DDV-100 BMW stepped out of the car after collision and Crl.M.C.401/2016 Page 1 of? 2016:DHC:9004 identified himself as one Aryan. The complainant/respondent no.2 and the petitioner/accused both sustained injuries due to which the complainant was admitted to Safdurjung Hospital and the petitioner was admitted to AIIMS. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which theFIRin question was registered against thepetitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the petitioner andthe respondent no^2.

4. Respondent No.;2'^present^^n^^^^ Ppufesubmitted that the dispute between the parties lfas%eeh amicably resolyed>I:t,is agreed that that respondent hb.2-dbes not<witf||H^uf,sus proceedings|emanating from FIR in questiefe' It is per^te^^^^tion that fespondent no.2 has received i.s.75,000/- from\^.^^ij^fce company as awarded by the f[1] li ii MACT irilclaim D-25/2014 bh|28|0B.'2015. |i Respondent No.2 contents of Athe aforesaid ft. /? settlement.%A11 been resolved through mutuMxcb^sdnt^Npyyno d^ survives and so, the proceedings^ifsing|)ut^tS^^^>'i^ft€stion be brought to an end. Statement ofthe resp(mdSt!F®r2''has been recorded inthis regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further stated that he has no objection ifthe FIR in question is quashed.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- ''61. In other words, the High Court must consider Crl.M.C. 401/2016 Page 2 of? whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and cornpromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in NarindetSingK^^^ ofPunjab (2014) 6 SCC

466. The relevant obseiyutip'hsipfiithecA^^ in Narinder Singh (Supra) are asTmderi^'^ % ^,;?"29. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, we sum up fj and lay down the following prmciples by which the I' High Court would be guided in giving adequate f^ I 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 I I direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.[1] Power conferred under Section 482 of the 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 Comf 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 is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends ofjustice, or

(ii)to prevent abuse of the processof any court. Crl.M.C. 401/2016 Page 3 of[7] AO.TfListing) While exercising the power the High Court isto form an opinion on either ofthe aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature andhave 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 inthat capacity are not to be quashed merely •on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having ovei-whelmingly and predominantly civil chai'acter, particularly those aiising out of commercial /Irtansactions or arising out ofmatrimonial relationship orfamily disputes should be quashed when the parties I have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. it • w pwn'W' 1 ij) 15 H(I fl M

7 The; inherent powerSnbjfthe|ii|h Court ought to 1^ exercised to prevent thexabuse o;l^pro|esj~^M to/sepure the^pnds ofjustice. The respondlnt|i^^reetf!oHll~qu^n^L[4]:M in question and stated that&eSiatter>|m|l^rr^M ojatffdus own free will. As the matter has been^%ttleB^nycgmprdffised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse ofprocess of law and to secure the ends ofjustice.

8. The incorporation ofinherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision Crl.M.C. 401/2016 Page 4of? of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends ofjustice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to anypersonby using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions oflaw.

9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.f?slfourd^ be; •used.^sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex „ f\\S ^ ^ O Court in the case offSthtk ofMaharasHtra^hrough CBI v. Vikram Anatrai DodifMid Orsif^l^M^^M42/2^4^-A,in the case of Inder Singit G^swami MMfP^SC/0808/2009 has observedthat powersundersStelioh 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised j ^ i{ |i'yw«c fi'Wr t', |t fs j? SniI I ii sparinglyll carefully and w;iti f^rfealf caution. Only when the Court I.. J. comes to the conclusion thhtTh#e"w®»uld be manifest injustice or there A It Av would be abuse/idf^hejj probe&s!;\bf?/fhe such power is not V' '''%••.-y,-•/ exercised, Coutt would duash theproceedings

10. It is awell settl%d4l^^filt #le^es?tfe;;Migh Court is convinced that the offences are entirely^pefsblial in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends ofjustice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case ofB.S. CrLM.C. 401/2016 Page 5 of? Joshi and others v. State ofHaryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, itdid not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that iffor the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers ^-uhSer--, fSipetiort:, 482v;:,Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to tsecure the ends^^fjusticd in./^'^iewsgf the special facts and circumstances bf the^case^eyenrf'j^ the^ off^nces were noncompounAl%^ \ In |he light of theWo^eM'itllJthis Court is of the view that I 'i notwithstlnding the feet th^Ahfe^fgnce under Sectionf;279 IPC is a I Ifeftk V non-compOundable offencfe'ffirelefofte^^^ should be no impediment in quashing^ the/F®ft|indeh)jpis\fts is otherwise satisfied that theTaeSjarids^circum^apes^ warrant. 11..In the facts %nd-'--circitf and in view of statement made by the respohfienCrib. 2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.