Delhi High Court Vikrant Puri vs The State & Anr on 31 July, 2014Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3290/2014

VIKRANT PURI ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhijat and Mr. Tejeshman Sharma, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE & ANR ….. Respondents Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP.

Mr. T. N. Tyagi, Advocate for complainant / respondent No.2

SI Pawan Kumar.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.237/2014 dated 15.06.2014, registered under Sections 380 IPC at police station Greater Kailash, at the instance of second respondent, Sh. Jyotveer Singh Chada on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled in terms of a compromise entered into between the parties on 16.06.2014. The said Settlement Deed has also been annexed to this petition.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. T. N. Tyagi, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant / respondent No.2.

4. It would appear that both the complainant and the petitioner were friends belonging to reasonably affluent families, and in the aftermath of a Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7 get-together at the house of the complainant, the complainant had lodged the said FIR alleging theft of money and certain articles from his house by the petitioner / accused.

5. The Investigating Officer is present in Court.

6. The matter is stated to be under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed.

7. Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant states that, with the intervention of well-wishers of family of both the parties concerned; and keeping in view the long association between the two; the matter has been amicably resolved, and the complainant does not wish to pursue the complaint any further.

8. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter any further, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

9. Looking to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; and also Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“31. 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

Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 2 of 7 accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) 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.

(II) 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.

(III) Such a power is not 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 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.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil

Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 3 of 7 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.

(V) 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.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 Indian Penal Code 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 307Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code. 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 later case it would be