Full Judgment Text
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on:30 July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.1995 /2015
YUDHISHTIR SHARMA & ANR
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.A.K.Thakur, Adv with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the
State with SI Vijay Singh,
PS Civil Lines, Delhi in
person.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek direction to set aside the
order dated 06.04.2005 in FIR No.38/2001 registered at PS Civil Lines,
Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 403/467/471/34 of the
IPC against the petitioners.
2. Vide the aforesaid order, petitioners were summoned in the case.
Thereafter, the matter has been settled with the respondent No.2, who is
personally present in the Court.
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 1 of 7
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submit that
aforesaid case was on the complaint of respondent No.2. Initially there
were two accused namely Geeta Chadha and Mahender Prasad Jain.
Thereafter, Mahender Prasad Jain moved an application under Section
319 of the Cr P C and pursuant thereto he was exonerated. Thereafter,
police filed the supplementary charge sheet and the petitioners herein
were made accused therein and Mahender Prasad Jain was figured in the
list of witnesses. Accused Geeta Chadha was discharged vide order dated
02.09.2014 by the learned Trial Court, however, only the petitioners
remained as accused.
4. Respondent No.2 has amicably settled the disputes with the
petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case against them, who is
personally present in the Court and for his identification he has produced
original Aadhaar card bearing No.4297-9187-7821. Original seen and
returned to him. Photocopy is placed on record. Moreover, respondent
No.2 has also been duly identified by learned counsel for petitioners. He
submits that he settled the matter with petitioners and does not wish to
pursue the case further.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits accused
Geeta has been discharged vide order dated 02.09.2014. Cognizance was
taken in the matter on 06.04.2005. Since, the respondent No.2 has settled
the matter with the petitioners and he is no more interested to pursue his
case against them, the State has no objection, if the present petition is
allowed.
6. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 2 SCC
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 2 of 7
(L&S)998, the Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution
of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“ Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise
between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate and prompt attention of a court which should
endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
offender and the victim has been settled although the
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
factor.”
7. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case
of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466
wherein held 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
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 3 of 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on:30 July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.1995 /2015
YUDHISHTIR SHARMA & ANR
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.A.K.Thakur, Adv with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the
State with SI Vijay Singh,
PS Civil Lines, Delhi in
person.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek direction to set aside the
order dated 06.04.2005 in FIR No.38/2001 registered at PS Civil Lines,
Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 403/467/471/34 of the
IPC against the petitioners.
2. Vide the aforesaid order, petitioners were summoned in the case.
Thereafter, the matter has been settled with the respondent No.2, who is
personally present in the Court.
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 1 of 7
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submit that
aforesaid case was on the complaint of respondent No.2. Initially there
were two accused namely Geeta Chadha and Mahender Prasad Jain.
Thereafter, Mahender Prasad Jain moved an application under Section
319 of the Cr P C and pursuant thereto he was exonerated. Thereafter,
police filed the supplementary charge sheet and the petitioners herein
were made accused therein and Mahender Prasad Jain was figured in the
list of witnesses. Accused Geeta Chadha was discharged vide order dated
02.09.2014 by the learned Trial Court, however, only the petitioners
remained as accused.
4. Respondent No.2 has amicably settled the disputes with the
petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case against them, who is
personally present in the Court and for his identification he has produced
original Aadhaar card bearing No.4297-9187-7821. Original seen and
returned to him. Photocopy is placed on record. Moreover, respondent
No.2 has also been duly identified by learned counsel for petitioners. He
submits that he settled the matter with petitioners and does not wish to
pursue the case further.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits accused
Geeta has been discharged vide order dated 02.09.2014. Cognizance was
taken in the matter on 06.04.2005. Since, the respondent No.2 has settled
the matter with the petitioners and he is no more interested to pursue his
case against them, the State has no objection, if the present petition is
allowed.
6. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 2 SCC
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 2 of 7
(L&S)998, the Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution
of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“ Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise
between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate and prompt attention of a court which should
endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
offender and the victim has been settled although the
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
factor.”
7. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case
of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466
wherein held 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
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 3 of 7
| proceedings even in those cases which are not<br>compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter<br>between themselves. However, this power is to be<br>exercised sparingly and with caution.<br>29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and<br>on that basis petition for quashing the criminal<br>proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases<br>would be to secure:<br>(i) ends of justice, or<br>(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. | 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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 |
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 4 of 7
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 of heinous 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 is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, 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 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 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 the fact that the settlement between the parties
is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future 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
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 5 of 7
is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed 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 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 case finally 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 of the 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 of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime.”
8. Keeping in view the law discussed above, the facts and
circumstances of this case, the matter stands amicably settled between the
parties, statements made by the respondents No.2 and the fact that the
respondent No.2/complainant is no longer interested in supporting the
prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now
greatly diminished. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this
matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
9. Consequently, the order dated 06.04.2005 in FIR No.38/2001
registered at PS Civil Lines, Delhi for the offences punishable under
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 6 of 7
Sections 403/467/471/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and all
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against them.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
JULY 30, 2015
M
Crl.M.C. No.1995/2015 Page 7 of 7