Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1554/2016
th
Date of Decision: August 29 , 2016
ABHISHEK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with ASI Brij
Bhan, Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, Sh. Abhishek for quashing of FIR No.42/2016
dated 07.01.2016, under Section 308/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Shakarpur on the basis of the settlement deed executed
between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Mr. Manish
Choudhary along with others on 22.03.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by ASI Brij Bhan.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that
on 06.01.2016, the complainant received a phone call from his friend
Karan Sahani, asking the complainant to reach Ganesh Kachori,
Mother Dairy Road informing him that something had gone wrong.
Upon reaching the said spot, the complainant met with the accused
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 1 of 7
who was standing with 2-3 friends of his. Upon enquiring about Karan
Sahni, the accused along with his friends attacked the complainant
with snooker sticks. Upon raising alarm, the said persons fled the
scene.
Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged
following which, the FIR in question was registered against the
accused persons. Later, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the
intervention of friends and family members of the parties. It is agreed
that the petitioner shall approach this Court for the quashing of the
FIR in question and that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with him for
the same.
Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement and of his affidavit dated 30.03.2016 supporting this
petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the
FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner
survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be
brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded
in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise
with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further
stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 2 of 7
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are as under:-
“ 29. In view of the 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 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 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 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 guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 3 of 7
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and
stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. As the
matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be
an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 4 of 7
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C.
or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice.
Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the
express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not
exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 5 of 7
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that Section 308 IPC is a non-compoundable
offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this
section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and
circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants
to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be
quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.42/2016 dated
07.01.2016, under Section 308/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Shakarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed
against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 6 of 7
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 29, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 7 of 7
+ CRL.M.C. 1554/2016
th
Date of Decision: August 29 , 2016
ABHISHEK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with ASI Brij
Bhan, Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, Sh. Abhishek for quashing of FIR No.42/2016
dated 07.01.2016, under Section 308/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Shakarpur on the basis of the settlement deed executed
between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Mr. Manish
Choudhary along with others on 22.03.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by ASI Brij Bhan.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that
on 06.01.2016, the complainant received a phone call from his friend
Karan Sahani, asking the complainant to reach Ganesh Kachori,
Mother Dairy Road informing him that something had gone wrong.
Upon reaching the said spot, the complainant met with the accused
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 1 of 7
who was standing with 2-3 friends of his. Upon enquiring about Karan
Sahni, the accused along with his friends attacked the complainant
with snooker sticks. Upon raising alarm, the said persons fled the
scene.
Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged
following which, the FIR in question was registered against the
accused persons. Later, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the
intervention of friends and family members of the parties. It is agreed
that the petitioner shall approach this Court for the quashing of the
FIR in question and that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with him for
the same.
Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement and of his affidavit dated 30.03.2016 supporting this
petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the
FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner
survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be
brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded
in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise
with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further
stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 2 of 7
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are as under:-
“ 29. In view of the 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 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 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 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 guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 3 of 7
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and
stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. As the
matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be
an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 4 of 7
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C.
or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice.
Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the
express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not
exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 5 of 7
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that Section 308 IPC is a non-compoundable
offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this
section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and
circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants
to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be
quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.42/2016 dated
07.01.2016, under Section 308/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Shakarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed
against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 6 of 7
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 29, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 1554/2016 Page 7 of 7