Full Text
W.P.(CRL) 2903/2015
SURENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL Petitioner
Through Mr.Yogendra Verma & Mr.Nitin Garg, Advs.
Through Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC with Mr.Piyush Singhal, Adv.
Mr.Arunav Tewari, Adv.
MAHESH CHAND GARG Petitioner
Through Mr.Yogendra Verma & Mr.Nitin Garg, Advs.
Through Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC with Mr.Piyush Singhal, Adv.
Mr.Arunav Tewari, Adv.
11.12.2015 2015:DHC:11122 Crl.M.A No.18100/2015 in W.P.rCrl.) 2903/2015 & Crl.M.A.18ini/2nTS in W.P.fCrl.) 2904/2015
Exemptions granted subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(Crl.)2903/2015 & 2904/2015 The petitioners, in both the petitions seek quashing of FIR NO. 168/2015 (P.S.Civil Lines) instituted for offence under Sections 420/34 of the IPG.
The complainant/respondent No.2 has alleged that he became acquainted with the petitioners during the course of business dealings. On one occasion petitioner Surinder Kumar Aggarwal offered to sell his property situated at Burari, Delhi for Rs.12,50,000/-.
Considering the price of the property to be less than the market value, the complainant readily agreed for buying the same. He gave Rs.2,50,000/- to petitioner Surinder Kumar Aggarwal through three cheques which were encashed on 16.02.2015. Petitioner Mahesh Chand Garg is alleged to have visited the office ofrespondent No.2 and demanded more money.
Pursuant to such a demand the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner Mahesh Chand Garg by obtaining such amount from his friend namely Gaurav Kohli. Again there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- which also was immediately paid. Thus the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid by the complainanttowards the sale price ofthe propertyat Burari.
The complainant was made to understand that the registration of the property shall be done within two months of the payment of amount. f
However, the accused persons namely the petitioners are said to have run away after accepting said amount.
It is stated that with the intervention of well wishers, an agreement has been arrived at between the parties after compromise. According to the terms of the agreement for settlement, it was agreed upon that the complainant would not pursue the case against the petitioners. The complainant has been returned the agreed amount.
Considering the fact that the grievance of the respondent No.2 has beencompletely redressed as also taking into account the fact thatno fruitful purpose would be served in further prosecuting the petitioners, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR.
In Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of any 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 securingthe ends ofjustice.
The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh (Supra):
"3S No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers andthreatens 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 been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with orwithout the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., orother offences ofmental depravity under IPC or ojfences ofmoral 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 legal sanction 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 the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offenderand the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective ofthefact 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 ofthe offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjusticeshall 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
SCC 1.]
InNarinderSingh & Ors. vs. StateofPunjab &Anr., (2014) 6
SCC 466, the pertinent observations ofthe Apex Court are as under:-
ORDER
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down thefollowing 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 criminalproceedings: 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 compoundahle, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to beexercisedsparingly and with caution.
29.2. When theparties have reached the settlement andon that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guidingfactor 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 ofthe aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental r-i 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 ofcompromise 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 theparties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to y 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 not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category ofheinous 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 isframed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307 IPC is therefor the sake ofitor theprosecution has collectedsufficient evidence, which ifproved, 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 guidingfactor. 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 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 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 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 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 andeven the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to startor 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 theprosecution 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 casefinally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307IPC 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 IPG and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofsparing a convictfound guilty ofsuch a crime. " Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having a wide plenitude could be used for quashing the FIR for securing the ends of justice and to prevent theabuse oftheprocess ofthecourt. Considering the nature of accusation, settlement of dispute between the parties and futility of allowing the investigation in the subject FIR to be continued any further, the subject FIR (FIR No.168/2015, PS Civil Lines) and all the emanating proceedings thereof are quashed. Both the petitions are disposed ofin terms ofthe aforesaid.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J DECEMBER 11, 2015 ab