Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4807/2015
th
Date of Decision : February 19 , 2016
AMIT JAIN & ANR .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Komal Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
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. Amit Jain and Sh. Raj Kumar Jain for
quashing of FIR No.233/2007 dated 15.05.2007, under Sections
323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on
the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi arrived at between petitioners and the respondent
no.2, namely, Sh. Trilok Chand Pali on 20.07.2015 .
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 in the FIR in question
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 1 of 9
by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the accused
persons blamed him for the sealing of the factory which was on the
ground floor of the house of the complainant. On 10.03.2007, the
complainant was hurled abuses by the accused persons and both the
accused persons caught hold of the complainant and started abusing
him. Accused-Amit @ Babua caught hold of the hand of the
complainant and when the complainant resisted, the accused chew his
right hand thumb and pushed him downstairs. Due to the same, the
complainant received injuries on his right knee, left cheek and blood
started oozing out of his thumb. Thereafter, the police reached the
spot and caught hold of the accused-Amit @ Babua and took both the
accused and the complainant to the hospital. On the same day i.e.
10.03.2007, accused-Raj Kumar came along with 4/5 persons and
broke the seal of the factory and complainant informed the police
about the same and thus he was also arrested. Thereafter, FIR bearing
no. 146/07 was registered on 26.03.2007 under Sections 323/341/506
IPC against the complainant and two other persons in which they
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 2 of 9
were arrested and released on bail.
The respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and on the direction of the learned Magistrate, the FIR in
question was lodged against the petitioners. A charge sheet was also
filed by the IO against the petitioners. During the pendency of the
trail, on 09.07.2015, the parties were referred to the mediation cell
where they resolved all their issues amicably.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
mediation report, it is agreed that the respective accused persons and
complainants of FIRs bearing no. 349/2007, 62/2008, 146/2007 and
233/2007 registered at Police station Subzi Mandi shall compound the
offences arising out of the said FIRs with each other without any
compensation by initiating appropriate legal proceedings for quashing
of FIRs and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the said
FIRs or for disposal of the said case in accordance with law before the
referral Court on or before 31.08.2015 and in the said proceedings the
concerned parties shall cooperate with each other. It is agreed that the
above settlement is without prejudice to the outcome of the suit
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 3 of 9
bearing no. 261/10 titled as “Suresh Kumari v. NDPL” and also
without prejudice to the appeal filed by Suresh Kumari which is
pending before ATMCD. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of
the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners
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 petitioners and has settled all the disputes with
them. 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:-
“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.”
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 4 of 9
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.
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
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 5 of 9
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
has 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
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;
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 6 of 9
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 tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 7 of 9
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.
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 the offence under Section 324 IPC is a
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 8 of 9
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.233/2007
dated 15.05.2007, under Sections 323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered
at Police Station Subzi Mandi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 9 of 9
+ CRL.M.C. 4807/2015
th
Date of Decision : February 19 , 2016
AMIT JAIN & ANR .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Komal Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
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. Amit Jain and Sh. Raj Kumar Jain for
quashing of FIR No.233/2007 dated 15.05.2007, under Sections
323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on
the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi arrived at between petitioners and the respondent
no.2, namely, Sh. Trilok Chand Pali on 20.07.2015 .
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 in the FIR in question
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 1 of 9
by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the accused
persons blamed him for the sealing of the factory which was on the
ground floor of the house of the complainant. On 10.03.2007, the
complainant was hurled abuses by the accused persons and both the
accused persons caught hold of the complainant and started abusing
him. Accused-Amit @ Babua caught hold of the hand of the
complainant and when the complainant resisted, the accused chew his
right hand thumb and pushed him downstairs. Due to the same, the
complainant received injuries on his right knee, left cheek and blood
started oozing out of his thumb. Thereafter, the police reached the
spot and caught hold of the accused-Amit @ Babua and took both the
accused and the complainant to the hospital. On the same day i.e.
10.03.2007, accused-Raj Kumar came along with 4/5 persons and
broke the seal of the factory and complainant informed the police
about the same and thus he was also arrested. Thereafter, FIR bearing
no. 146/07 was registered on 26.03.2007 under Sections 323/341/506
IPC against the complainant and two other persons in which they
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 2 of 9
were arrested and released on bail.
The respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and on the direction of the learned Magistrate, the FIR in
question was lodged against the petitioners. A charge sheet was also
filed by the IO against the petitioners. During the pendency of the
trail, on 09.07.2015, the parties were referred to the mediation cell
where they resolved all their issues amicably.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
mediation report, it is agreed that the respective accused persons and
complainants of FIRs bearing no. 349/2007, 62/2008, 146/2007 and
233/2007 registered at Police station Subzi Mandi shall compound the
offences arising out of the said FIRs with each other without any
compensation by initiating appropriate legal proceedings for quashing
of FIRs and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the said
FIRs or for disposal of the said case in accordance with law before the
referral Court on or before 31.08.2015 and in the said proceedings the
concerned parties shall cooperate with each other. It is agreed that the
above settlement is without prejudice to the outcome of the suit
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 3 of 9
bearing no. 261/10 titled as “Suresh Kumari v. NDPL” and also
without prejudice to the appeal filed by Suresh Kumari which is
pending before ATMCD. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of
the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners
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 petitioners and has settled all the disputes with
them. 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:-
“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.”
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 4 of 9
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.
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
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 5 of 9
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
has 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
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;
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 6 of 9
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 tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 7 of 9
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.
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 the offence under Section 324 IPC is a
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 8 of 9
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.233/2007
dated 15.05.2007, under Sections 323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered
at Police Station Subzi Mandi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 9 of 9