Narender Pal & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 09 Mar 2016 · 2016:DHC:2013

Suresh Kait

Crl.M.C.No.988/2016

2016:DHC:2013

criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal case involving non-compoundable offences under IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and serve ends of justice.

Full Text

Crl.M.C.No.988/2016 HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGMENT

delivered on: 09th March, 2016 CRL.M.C. No.988/2016
NARENDER PAL & ORS..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Tanwar, Adv with petitioners.

versus

STATE & ANR..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.G.M.Farooqui, APP for the State with SI Arun
Kumar, PS Fatehpur Beri, Delhi in person.
R2/complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.56/ 2014 registered at Police Station Fateh Pur Beri for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, Smt.Rekha Gupta due to certain dispute regarding plot admeasuring 120 square yards bearing No.1308, Khasra No.1754 Village Asola, Delhi. The police filed the charge sheet against them; however, charges are yet to be framed. Meanwhile, the respondent 2016:DHC:2013 No.2 and petitioners amicably settled their disputes for a total amount of Rs.8,50,000/- before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 16.02.2015 and pursuant thereto they have also entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 07.01.2016.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that consequent to above settlement and memorandum of understanding it is agreed between the parties that respondent No.2 shall pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and petitioner No.1 shall pay Rs.5,50,000/- to petitioner No.2 and the latter in turn shall hand over the possession of plot in question to respondent No.2. Thus, respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue her case against the petitioners.

4. Petitioner No.2 is also present today in the Court and affirms that he has received total agreed amount of Rs.8,50,000/- from petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. He further states that the possession of plot in question shall be handed over by him to respondent No.2.

5. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. She submits that matter has been settled between the parties and agreed amount of Rs.8,50,000/- has been paid to petitioner No.2. On receipt of such amount, the possession of plot in question shall be received by her from petitioner No.2 The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.29 of the petition. Thus, she does not wish to pursue this case further and has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that chargesheet has been filed by the police, however, case is at the initial stage of trial as charges are yet to be framed. The parties have amicably settled the matter & the respondent No.2/complainant does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners, therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

7. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 467/468/471 of the IPC are non-compoundable, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court has power to accept the compromise. This issue has been decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case titled as Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 998 wherein held as under:- “58.....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 of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

8. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court 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

11,840 characters total

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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the 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 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.

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 of criminal 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 IPC would fall in the category of heinous 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 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, 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 of injury 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 guiding factor. 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 of conviction 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 their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement 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 charge-sheet 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 of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would 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 of the 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 of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

9. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 16.02.2015 and memorandum of understanding dated 07.01.2016 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

10. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 467/468/ 471 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

11. In view of the law discussed above, considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent Nos.1& 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

12. Consequently, FIR No.56/2014 registered at Police Station Fateh Pur Beri for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/ 471/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

13. In view of statement made by petitioner No.2, I hereby direct him to hand over the peaceful possession of plot in question to respondent No.2 within two days from today.

14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to cost.

15. Copy of order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master to parties. Crl. M.A.No.4215/2016 (for Stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) MARCH 09, 2016 M

Narender Pal & Ors. v. State & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation