Full Text
W.P.(CRL) 2487/2015
PRAVEEN SAHRMA & ANR. Petitioners
Through Ms.Ashu Arora, Adv.
Through Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC.
SI Raj Kumar PS Neb Sarai.
Mr.Vishal Sharma, Adv.
RASHED ALI & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vishal Sharma, Adv.
Through Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC.
SI Raj Kumar PS Neb Sarai.
Ms.Ashu Arora, Adv.
24.11.2015 Crl.M.A No.15915/2015 & 15943/2015
Exemptions granted subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
2015:DHC:11113 W.P.fCrl.^ 2487/2015 & 2491/2015
ORDER
1. By this common order, this Court shall dispose of W.P. (Crl.) 2487/2015 & W.P. (Crl.) 2491/2015, as these cases arise from cross FIR's.
2. The petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 2487/2015 (who are the respondents in W.P. (Crl.) 2491/2015), seek quashing ofFIRNo^ 731/2014 (PS Neb Sarai) instituted for offences under Sections 341/147/506/149/323 of the IPC. On the other hand, the petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 2491/2015 (who are the respondents in W.P. (Crl.) 2487/2015), seek quashing of FIR No. 730/2014 (PS Neb Sarai) instituted for offences under Sections 341/147/506/149/323 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 abovementioned FIR's came to be registered due to an incident which had occurred on 17.08.2014. The petitioners and the respondents reside in the same locality and are neighbours. It is submitted that on the said date, one Sonu @ Monu, a minor, accidentally injured the son of Rashed Ali and Fulora Khatun (Petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 2491/2015), which led to an altercation with Praveen Sharma and Naveen Sharma (Petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 2487/2015), who are the sons of the landlord of Sonu, and the subsequent registration ofthe FIR's.
5. It is submitted by the counsels, on behalf of the parties, that in the month of January, 2015 a settlement had been arrived, as per which they have agreed to amicably resolve their disputes without any caveat and have agreed to compound the said offences. It is further submitted that all the disputes between both the parties have been amicably settled, resolved and compromised to their respective satisfaction. 'S)
6. The parties are present in Court.
7. The investigation inthe matter is still continuing and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.
8. Upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of the disputes 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.
9. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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.
10. The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra): "58 No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doeronlybecausehe 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 or without the permission of the court. In respect ofserious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences ofmental depravity underIPC or offences ofmoral turpitude under specialstatutes, 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 hear 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 of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework 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 ofjustice shall bedefeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its ownfacts and no hard-and-fast category can beprescribed. " [Refer toB.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16SCC 1.]
11. In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466, the pertinentobservations of the Apex Courtare as under:-
29. In view ofthe 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 itspower 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 ofthe 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 theparties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to he exercisedsparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petitionfor quashing the criminal proceedings isfiled, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) toprevent abuse oftheprocess 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 bypublic 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 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 307IPC wouldfall in the category ofheinous and serious 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 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge isframed under thisprovision. It wouldbe open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307 IPC is therefor the sake ofit or theprosecution has collectedsufficient evidence, which ifproved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it r" 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guidingfactor. On the basis ofthisprimafacie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strongpossibility of conviction or the chances ofconviction are remote and bleak. In theformer 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 basedon 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 itspower under Section 482 ofthe 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 ff facie assessment ofthe 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 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 ofthe offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded ofa heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question ofsparing a convictfound guilty ofsuch a crime. "
12. Thus, the inherent powers ofthe High Court, having awide plenitude could be used for quashing the FIR's for securing the ends ofjustice and to prevent the abuse ofthe process ofthe court.
13. The subject FIR's (FIR Nos. 731/2014 & 730/2013) (PS Neb Sarai) and the emanating proceedings thereof are, for the reasons aforestated, quashed.
14. The petitions are disposed of in terms ofthe aforesaid. Crl. M.A.15916/2015 & 15944/2015
2. In view ofthe petitions having been allowed, no orders are required to be passed in the instant applications.
3. Dismissed as infructuous.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 24, 2015 ab