Full Text
W.P.(CRL)2166/2015
RAKESHDEVI&ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.AshokThagal,Advocate.
Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan,ASC.
Mr.VishwaRanjan Kumar,Advocateforthe respondent Nos.2to 5.
ASIRamesh Kumar,P.S.Burari.
MANOJ GUPTA Petitioner
Through: Mr.VishwaRanjan Kumar,Advocate.
Through: Mr.Vishesh Wadhwa,Advocate for ]VIr.R.S.Kundu,ASC.
Mr.Ashok Thagal,Advocate for the respondents.
ASIRamesh Kumar,P.S.Burari.
01.12.2015 CrI.M.A No.14227/2015& CrI.M.A.14220/2015
Exemption granted subjectto alljustexceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(Crll 2166/2015& W.P.(Crll 2160/2015
ORDER
1. This Court shall dispose of W.P. (Crl) 2166/2015 & W.P. (Crl) 2160/2015 by this common order as these cases arise from cross-case FIR's. 2015:DHC:11118
2. The petitioners in W.P.(Crl) 2166/2015, seek quashing of FIR NO. 937/2015(PS Burari)instituted for offence under Sections 308/34IPG ofthe IPG. On the other hand, the Petitioner in W.P. (Grl) 2160/2015, seeks quashing of FIR No. 936/2015 (PS Burari) instituted under Sections 279/337/354/323/506/34 ofthe IPG.
3. Both the parties seek quashing of the aforementioned FIR's on the strength ofan amicable settlementhaving been arrived at between them.
4. The subject FIR's came to be registered due to a road accident which had occurred on 29.07.2015. The petitioners and the respondents reside in the same locality and are known to each other. It is submitted that on the said date,Rakesh Devi(Petitioner No.l in W.P.(Grl)2166/2015),whilst on her way to the marketplace, was hit by the car belonging to Mukesh Gupta and Umesh Gupta (Respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in W.P.(Grl) 2166/2015)which led to a heated argument. Subsequently, Naveen Kumar and Himanshu (Petitioner No.2 and 3, respectively, in W.P. (Grl) 2166/2015),nephews ofRakesh Devi,alsojoined in and a scuffle broke out betweenthe parties whichledtothe registration ofthe subjectFIR's.
5. It is submitted that both parties suffered superficial injuries and had acted in the heat ofthe moment.It is further submitted by the counsels on behalf of the parties, that they have realized their mistakes and with the intervention ofwell wishers and elders ofthe community 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 theirrespective satisfaction.
6. The parties are presentin Court.
7. The investigation in the matter is still continuing and the charge-sheet have not yet been filed.
8. 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 further prosecution. In view of the aforementioned observations this Court is inclined to quash the present FIRs.
9. The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another(Supra): "^8 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 notsafe 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 or without the permission of the court. In respect ofserious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences ofmentaldepravity underIPCor offences 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 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 of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convicted and by not quashing 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)4SCC675;Nikhil Merchant,(2008) 9SCO677and ManoJSharma,(2008)16SCC[1].]
10. In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466,the pertinent observations ofthe Apex Court are as under:-
29. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, wesum 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 ofthe Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to acceptthesettlement 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 320ofthe 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 exercisedsparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basispetitionfor quashing the criminalproceedings isfiled, the guidingfactor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or(ii)topreventabuse oftheprocess ofany court. While exercising the power the High Court is toform an opinion on either ofthe aforesaidtwo objectives.
29.3. Such apower is not to he exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences ofmental 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 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 ofcriminal cases would put the accused to great oppression andprejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by notquashingthe criminalcases.
29.6. Offences underSection 307IPC wouldfall in the category ofheinousandserious offencesandthereforeare 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 isa mention ofSection 307IPCin theFIR or the charge isframed under thisprovision.Itwould be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation ofSection 307IPC is therefor the sake ofit or theprosecution has collectedsufficient evidence, which ifproved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307IPC.For thispurpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature ofinjury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate partsofthe body, nature ofweapons used,etc. Medicalreportin respect ofinjuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guidingfactor. On the basis ofthis primafacie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong r 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 bepermissiblefor the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between theparties. 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 underSection 482 ofthe 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 criminalproceedings/investigation. It is 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 atinfancy stage, the High Courtcan show benevolence in exercising itspowersfavourably, 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." V,
11. Thus,the inherentpowers 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.
12. The subject FIR's(FIR Nos. 937/2015 & 936/2015,PS Burari)and the emanatingproceedingsthereofare,forthereasonsaforestated,quashed.
13. The petitions are disposed ofinterms ofthe aforesaid.
DECEMBER 01,2015 ab ASHUTOSH