Delhi High Court Sunil Bhatia & Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 6 August, 2014Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3450/2014
SUNIL BHATIA & ORS ….. Petitioners
Through Mr. B. B. Sharma, Advocate.
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ….. Respondent
Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor. Mr. A. K. Goel, Advocate for complainant. SI Inderpal Singh, P.S. Vivek Vihar.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.
1. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.504/2006, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC dated 01.012.2006 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. It is stated that after filing of the chargesheet, the matter is pending before the trial court.
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 1 of 7 A.K. Goel, counsel for the complainant, accept notice.
4. All the accused in the FIR are stated to be arrayed as the petitioners to this petition, and they are all present in person in Court. The complainant Smt. Amita Bhatia, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition, is also present in person.
5. Parties are identified by their respective counsel. The complainant has handed over a copy of her Election Card bearing No.IPS1802742 in proof of her identification.
6. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered as a result of a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the complainant, who were husband and wife. It is also stated that the complainant and the first petitioner have since obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 05.09.2013 in HMA No.654/2013, and a copy of the said relevant order dissolving their marriage under Section 13 (B) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has also been annexed to this petition. On the same date, joint statements of the complainant and the first petitioner were recorded by the concerned court setting down all the terms and conditions on which the settlement has been arrived at and marriage dissolved. As per the settlement, the complainant was to receive a total sum of Rs.60,000/-, and it was also agreed that the custody of the minor child, Shreya, born out of the first petitioner and the complainant on 29.03.2004 was to remain with the first petitioner.
7. The complainant acknowledges and approbates the terms of the aforesaid settlement and reiterates that the custody of the minor child, Shreya, shall remain with the first petitioner. She further states that out of the total amount of Rs.60,000/-, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has already been received by her; and the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- has been received by her in
Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 2 of 7 cash today in Court.
8. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the circumstances and the fact that the dispute arisen is largely a matrimonial one where the complainant herself is not inclined to support the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.
9. Consequently, and also looking to the decisions 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 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
Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 3 of 7 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 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
Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 4 of 7 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 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. Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 5 of 7 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 and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
I am satisfied that the matter deserves to be given a quietus, specially since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, and the dispute, which is largely a matrimonial one, appears to be settled between the parties on terms.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.504/2006, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC dated 01.012.2006 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 6 of 7
11. The petition stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
AUGUST 06, 2014
Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 Page 7 of 7