Full Text
CRL.M.C. 1361/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.5871/2016
Date ofDecision: December 2"^*, 2016 RAJKIRAN SINGH KATARYA Petitioner
Through Mr.Gaurav Goel, Adv.
Through Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, AFP for the State with SI Umesh, PS Gokulpuri.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitibri under Sectibn482.Gr.P:C. has been filed by the petitioner^ namely, Sh. Rajkiran Singh Ratarya for quashing of FIR No.638/2015 dated' 07.08.2015, under Section 304A IPG registered/at Police Station Gokulpuri on the basis of the statement of respondent no.3 namely, Sh^ Bijepder Singh to the ^SHO, Police Station Gbkulpuri, Delhi-lid0^%d^edi^20.03.2016.
2. Learned Additibnd.Public., Pr^ respondent-State submitted thafethe, respondent no. 2 narrieiy;Smt; Munendri Devi, and respondent no.3 present;in the Gourt has been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by SI Lokesh.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the on 07.08.2015, the deceased, Sh. Ravi Verma, was flying kite with his friends on the terrace ofthe school, when he slipped and fell from the terrace. Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint got lodged following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no.3 gave a statement, in writing, before the SHO, Police Station Crl.M.C. 1361/2016 Page 1 of[6] 2016:DHC:9012 h Gokulpuri, Delhi 110094 expressing his wish to not further prosecute the petitioner.
4. Respondent Nos.[2] & 3 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the statement of respondent no.3 it appears that the he does not hold the school administration responsible for the unfortunate event that led to the demise of Sh. Ravi Sharma. Respondent Nos.[2] & 3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the,:disputes^ diffefences have been resolved through mutual idonseht'Now no dispute with,petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in questioriibe brought to an end. StateAeiitl'of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compronlise with the petitionerfand have settled all the disputes with him. Theys further stated<^tha|%e|^MaYe no objection: if the FIR in question is quashed^^ 1
5. In (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognizedAhe^:rieed%f%hiGable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by bbserving asunder:-
Crl.M.C. 1361/2016 Page 2of[6]
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
;• 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 '.[1] not compoundable, where the parties have settled the A matter between themselves. However, this power is to ' be exercised sparingly and with caution.
529.2. 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 process of any court.
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 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 Crl.M.C. 1361/2016 Page[3] of 6 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 overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions orarising out ofmatrimonial relationship orfamily disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
7. The inherent powers ofthe High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of,,prdcess,pfJaw and tocsecure the ends ofjustice. The respondent iiosQ' c^ Tagreed to%e.quashing of the FIR in question and'stal|d'that matter has ^been settled'put oftheir own free will. As thp matter has beenisettled and cortiprorhised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process oflaw if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion" that-this, is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction:0mder4#|^A^ Cr.P.C. to^preVent the abuse ofprocess of lawand to secure the ends ofjustice.
8. The incorpbfatibnx0nherentipO^^^^ Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situatidiidh'the absence ofexpress provision 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 oflaw is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing ofharassment to any person by using the provision ofCr.P.C. or to avoid the delay ofthe legal process in the delivery ofjustice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions oflaw. CrI-M-C. 1361/2016 4
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.,
10. It is a well settled law that where the Hi^ Cburt is convinced that the offenqes are entirely personal in nature a.nd therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and" where it feels thdt quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basieaily 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. 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, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for 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 Crl.M.C. 1361/2016 Page 5 of[6] \° quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 304A is a noncompoundable offence, there shouldbe no impedimentin quashing the FIR under this section,-if the, Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances ofthe case so waiTant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statements made by the respondentmos. 2 & 3, the FIR in question warrants & be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is," and FIR No.638/2015 dated 07.08,2015j und%;Secti6n 4P4A IPC^re^^ Police Station Gokulpuri and the;proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner. V
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. Application Crl.M.A. No.5871/2016 is also disposed of accordingly. (P. JUDGE DECEMBER 02, 2016