Delhi High Court Dinesh Dixit & Ors vs State & Anr on 4 August, 2014Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3364/2014
DINESH DIXIT & ORS ….. Petitioners Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate with petitioners in person
STATE & ANR ….. Respondents Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP with ASI Jagbir Singh, PS Tilak Nagar
Mr. Munish Chhoker & Mr. K.C.
Joshi, Advs. with R-2 in person
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners praying that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 200/2010 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi, be quashed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
3. Counsel for the State, as well as the second respondent/complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. All the parties are present in person and are identified by their respective counsel.
4. It is stated that the chargesheet has been filed and the matter is pending before the trial court. It is further stated that the parties have entered into a settlement on 25.11.2010 before the Mediation Centre at Tis
CRL.M.C. 3364/2014 Page 1 of 6 Hazari, Delhi, where the parties were referred by the court below. Both parties state that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- mentioned in the said settlement has also been duly paid by the petitioners jointly to the second respondent/complainant, and that both the husband and wife, i.e. petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, who is respondent No. 2 herein, have been living together for the last one year. Both counsel, therefore, submit that it would be in the fitness of things for the proceedings to be dropped since the parties are living as husband and wife.
5. Counsel for the State also submits that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the prosecution where the second respondent/complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution.
6. Looking to the circumstances, and also keeping in mind 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 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
CRL.M.C. 3364/2014 Page 2 of 6 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 character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should
CRL.M.C. 3364/2014 Page 3 of 6 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 permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the
CRL.M.C. 3364/2014 Page 4 of 6 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.
(VII) 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 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 a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime
CRL.M.C. 3364/2014 Page 5 of 6 and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
I am of the opinion that the matter, which is arising out of a matrimonial dispute, and where the husband and wife have now reconciled their differences by a settlement entered into on 25.11.2010, i.e., nearly 3½ years ago, and are now living together as husband and wife for the last one year or so, and since there is little likelihood of the prosecution succeeding in the matter, deserves to be given a quietus.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 200/2010 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi, be quashed, and proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The petition stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 04, 2014
CRL.M.C. 3364/2014 Page 6 of 6