Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Govinda vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi & Ors on 5 October, 2015

Author: Suresh Kait

Bench: Suresh Kait

$~73
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    Judgment delivered on: 5th October, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 4103/2015

GOVINDA                                                       ..... Petitioner
                               Represented by: Mr. S.S. Parashar, Adv.

                    versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ORS                   ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for
                  State with SI Ajay Kumar, PS-Samaipur Badli.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 199/2009 registered at PS-Samaipur Badli for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, i.e., father of the respondent no. 3 as he was not happy with the affairs of the petitioner and respondent no.3. Consequently, respondent no. 3 left her matrimonial house on 04.08.2009 and married with the petitioner on 13.08.2009. Since then she is staying with him and gave birth to two children aged about 4 years and 1 year. Now the petitioner has accepted their marriage. Therefore, he does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner.

3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are personally present in the Court. For her identification, respondent no. 3 has produced Aadhar Card no.885296795756 issued by Govt. of India and respondent no. 2 has produced identity card issued by MCD vide no.34072 on 26.03.1999. Original of both the documents are seen and returned. Respondent no. 2 submits that he has accepted the marriage between her daughter and the petitioner, who has now become his son-in-law. Therefore, he does not want to pursue the case against him and if the present petition is allowed, he has no objection.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, charges have been framed the case is pending for prosecution evidence. The petitioner and respondent no.3 are living together as husband and wife, they have two children from the wedlock and the respondent no.2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner. Therefore, there would be no purpose to send the petitioner for trial and if the present petition is allowed, the State has no objection.

5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court 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; by observing as under:

"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour Crl.M.C. No.4103/2015 Page 2 of 6 having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court 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 Crl.M.C. No.4103/2015 Page 3 of 6 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 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.4103/2015 Page 5 of 6 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."

7. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent no.2 and ld. APP for the State and the settled legal position, FIR no. 199/2009 registered at PS-Samaipur Badli for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) October 05, 2015 jg Crl.M.C. No.4103/2015 Page 6 of 6