Full Text
W.P.(CRL) 2682/2015
NAV RATTAN AGGARWAL & ORS Petitioners
Through; Mr.C.S.Gupta, Advocate.
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in person.
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
Mr.Desh Raj and Mr.D.K.Kaushik, Advocates for the respondent No.2.
SI Mousam Ghani, P.S.Ma3nir Vihar.
MANOJ AGGARWAL & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Desh Raj and Mr.D.K.Kaushik, Advocates.
Through: Mr.Avi Singh, ASC.
Mr.C.S.Gupta, Ms.Kritika, Advocates for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 with respondent Nos.2 to 4 in person.
SI Mousam Ghani, P.S.Mayur Vihar.
24.11.2015 Crl. M.A.17031/2015 & CrI. M.A.17075/2015
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
2015:DHC:11115 J 9^ Applications stands disposed of.
ORDER
1. This Court shall dispose of W.P. (Crl.) 2682/2015 & W.P. (Crl.) 2688/2015 by this common order as these cases arise from cross- case FIR's.
2. The petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 2682/2015 (who are the respondents in W.P. (Crl.) 2688/2015), seek quashing of FIR No. 488/2013 (PS Mayur Vihar) instituted for offence under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the IPC. On the other hand, the petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 2688/2015 (who are the respondents in W.P. (Crl.) 2682/2015), seek quashing of FIR No. 487/2013 (PS Mayur Vihar) instituted for offence under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the IPC.
3. Both the parties seek quashing of the aforementioned FIR's on the strength of an amicable settlement having been arrived at between them.
4. The petitioners and respondents, in both the petitions, are known to each other as they are close relatives. They are also business partners and associates in the companyrun under the name and style of M/s Lalji Energy Foods Private Ltd., which is mainly managed and controlled by Mr. Navratan Agarwal (Petitioner No.l in W.P. (Crl.) 2682/2015 & Respondent No.2 in W.P. (Crl.) 2688/2015) and Mr. Manoj Agarwal (Petitioner No.l in W.P. (Crl.) 2688/2015) & Respondent No.2 in W.P. (Crl.) 2682/2015).
5. The abovementioned FIR's came to be registered due an incident which had occurred during a Board meeting of the aforementioned company. It is submitted that at the said meeting, on 27.12.2013, a scuffle had taken place between the parties due to certain miscommunication and misunderstandings regarding the dealings of the said company, pursuant to which the abovementioned FIR's came to be registered. -J
6. It is further submitted that due to the intervention of well wishers and relatives, the parties have agreed to amicably resolve their disputes without any caveat and have agreed to compound the said offences. A Compromise Deed was also executed between the parties in the month of May,2015 in terms of which it was agreed that all the disputes between both the parties have been amicably settled, resolved and compromised to their respective satisfaction.
7. The parties are present in Court.
8. The investigation in the matter is still continuing and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.
9. Upon a conspectus ofthe facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute between the parties are completely interpersonal and those have been completely redressed. Furthermore, no fruitful purpose would be served in further prosecution. In view of the aforementioned observations this Court is inclined to quash the present FIRs.
10. 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 securing the ends ofjustice.
11. The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra):
12. In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State ofPunjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations ofthe Apex Court are as under:-
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 guidingfactor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends ofjustice, or (ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process ofany court. While exercising the power the High Court is toform an opinion on either ofthe 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 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 IPG 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 IPG 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 IPG is there for the sake ofit or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPG. 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 ofthe 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 theformer case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminalproceedings 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 the fact 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 ofsettlement 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 chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge isframed 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 ofargument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 ofthe Code, as insuch 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 underSection 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 ofthe 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 ofsparing a convictfoundguilty ofsuch a crime. "
13. Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having a wide plenitude could be used for quashing the FIR's for securing the ends of justice and toprevent the abuse ofthe process ofthe court.
14. The subject FIR's (FIR Nos. 488/2013 & 487/2013, P.S.Mayur Vihar) and the emanating proceedings thereof are, for the reasons aforestated, quashed.
15. The petitions are disposed of terms of the aforesaid ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 24, 2015 ns