Shiv Prakash v. State (GNCT), Delhi & Anr

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Shiv Prakash for quashing of FIR No.44/2008 dated 21.02.2008, under Section 279/304-A IPC registered at Police Station New Usmanpur on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Rubina on 05.12.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State 2016:DHC:1859 submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by SI Jagbir Singh.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant, namely, Bishambher Singh lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that on 18.01.2008 a road accident was reported to have taken place opposite Power House, Village Garhi, Pusta Road and DD No.8A was received by him on request by S.I. Sharif Ahmen and S.I.Sahrif Ahmed and Ct. Pankaj reached at the Main Pusta Road in front of the power house wherein the injured was stated to have left for GTB hospital by TSR and no eye witness was confronted at the spot. They then reached the said hospital and collected the MLC of the injured. The SI recorded the statement of the injured Mohd. Zabir. The injured died during the treatment on 21.02.2008. The investigation is completed and now the trial is pending before the Trial Court. During the course of the trial, the parties i.e. petitioner/accused and respondent no.2 (widow of the deceased) arrived at an amicable settlement and resolved their issues.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU, the MACT, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi has already awarded respondent no.2 and other legal heirs with a compensation of Rs.10,68,774/- along with the 9% per annum qua the accident in proportions of 40:20:20:20 vide judgment dated 10.02.2015. It is also agreed that besides the above mentioned amount, the petitioner has paid respondent no.2 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and it has been received by her to her full satisfaction towards full and final settlement being reasonable and adequate compensation. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 and the legal heirs of the deceased shall not proceed with the proceeding arising out of the FIR in question pending before the concerned Trial Court. It is further agreed that respondent no.2 shall not raise any further claim or compensation against the petitioner arising out of the aforesaid road accident before any other Courts of law or agency. Respondent no.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 09.12.2015 supporting this petition. As per the affidavit filed by on behalf of the respondent no.2, it has been stated that all disputes with the petitioner have been settled and that there exists no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the 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:-

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC

466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:- “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following 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 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with 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 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 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 of justice, 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 working in that 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 or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised 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 of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by 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 of law.