Full Text
W.P.(CRL)33/2016& Crl. M.A.225/2016
RANA PRATAP& ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Nitish Angrish,Adv.
Through Mr.Sanjay Lao,ASC with Mr.Siddharth Sindhu,Adv.
ASI Manveer Singh PS Chhawla.
^ Ms.Pooja Singh,Adv.
SAGAR DAS& ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Nitin Angrish,Adv.
Through Mr.Sanjay Lao,ASC with Mr.Siddharth Sindhu,Adv.
ASI Manveer Singh PS Chhawla.
Ms.Pooja Singh,Adv.
08.01.2016
ORDER
1. This Court shall dispose of W.P.(Crl.)33/2016 & W.P.(Crl.)34/2016 by this common order as these cases arise from cross FIR's. 2016:DHC:9318 i,r n
2. The petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 33/2016, seek quashing of FIR NO. 269/2015 (PS. Chhawala) instituted for offence under Sections 147/149/308/323/34 ofthe IPC. On the other hand, the Petitioners in W.P. (Crl.)34/2016, seek quashing FIR No. 270/2015(PS. Chhawala)instituted under Sections 147/149/308/34 ofthe IPC.
3. Both the parties seek quashing of the aforementioned FIR's on the strength ofan amicable settlement having been arrived at between them.
4. The abovementioned FIR came to be registered due to a conflict ^ which had occurred between the parties on 07.05.2015. The parties in the aforementioned petitions are known to each other as they are neighbours.It is submitted that the dispute arose between parties due to certain water boring work which was being undertaken by the petitioners in W.P.(Crl.) 34/2016. The petitioners in W.P.(Crl.)33/2016 are said to have objected to the said work and attempted to stop the same. This led to an altercation between the parties, pursuant to which the subject FIR's came to be registered.
3. 5. It is submitted by the counsels, on behalf of the parties, that due to intervention of common friends and relatives, the parties have agreed to amicably settle all their disputes and differences. In pursuance thereto, the parties had also approached the Delhi Government Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Rohini, New Delhi for resolution of their disputes where both the parties entered into an amicable settlement.
6. The parties are presentin Court.
7. The investigation in the matter is still continuing and the chargesheets have not yet been filed.
8. It is submitted by the counsels ofthe parties that in view of all the disputes between the parties having been amicably settled,no grievance now remains to be adjudicated between them. In view thereof, the parties have approached this courtto seek permission to put an end to the cases registered against each other.
9. It is further submitted that the parties undertake to remain bound by the terms and conditions ofthe settlement having been arrived at and have also agreed to maintain good and cordial relations with each other.
10. Upon a conspectus ofthe facts and circumstances,this Court is ofthe opinion that the nature ofthe disputes between the parties are completely interpersonal and have been completely redressed. Furthermore no fruitful purpose would be served in any further prosecution. In view of the aforementioned facts,this Courtis inclined to quash the subjectFIRs.
11. In Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab & Another,(2012)10SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 ofthe Cr.P.C.could also be quashed,when continuation ofany criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justice demands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end and peace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only be ordered for securing the ends ofjustice.
12. The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another(Supra): No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being ofthe society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has beenpaidcompensation,yetcertain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission ofthe court. In respect ofserious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legalsanction at all. 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 thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective ofthefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework ofits inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convictedand by notquashing the criminalproceedings,justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its ownfacts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCCI.]
13. In NarimlerSingh & Ors. vs.StateofPunjab & Anr.(2014)6SCC 466,the pertinentobservationsofthe Apex Courtare as under:-
29. In view oftheaforesaiddiscussion, sum upandlaydown 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 ofthe Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedingsorrefusingto acceptthesettlementwith 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 compoundthe offences underSection 320ofthe Code Nodoubt under Section 482 ofthe Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are notcompoundable, where theparties havesettled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercisedsparingly and with caution.
29.2. When theparties have reached the settlement and on that basispetitionfor quashing the criminalproceedings isfiled, the guidmgfactor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice,or(ii)topreventabuseoftheprocessofanycourt. While exercising the power the High Court is toform an opinion on eitheroftheaforesaidtwo objectives.
29.3. Such apower is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutions ™ch involve heinous andserious offences ofmental depravity or offences like murder,rape,dacoity, etc.Such offencesare not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,for the offences allegedto 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 andthe offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly andpredominantly civil character,particularly _ those arising out ofcommercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship orfamily 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 ofconviction 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 notquashing the criminalcases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307IPG wouldfall in the category ofheinous andserious offences and therefore are to begenerally 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 ofSection 307IPG in the FIR or the charge isframed under thisprovision.It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307IPG is therefor the sake ofit or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which ifproved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307IPG. 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 ofthe body, nature ofweapons used, etc. Medicalreportin respect ofinjuries 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 ofconviction or the chances ofconviction 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 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 itspower under Section 482ofthe Code or not, timings ofsettlementplay 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 V J because ofthe reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not beenfiled. Likewise, those cases where the charge isframed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Courtcan show benevolence in exercising its powersfavourably, but afterprima facie assessmentofthe circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion ofthe evidence the matter is at the stage ofargument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 ofthe 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 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 ofthe offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307IPC and conviction is already recorded ofa heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofsparing a convictfound guilty ofsuch a crime."
14. Thus,the inherent powers ofthe High Court, having a wide plenitude could be used for quashing the FIR's for securing the ends ofjustice and to preventthe abuse ofthe process ofthe court.
15. The subject FIR's (FIR Nos. 269/2016 & 270/2016, PS. Chhawala) and the emanating proceedings thereof are, for the reasons aforestated, quashed. ^
16. The petitior^is disposed ofin terms ofthe aforesaid ASHUTOSH KUMAR,J