Delhi High Court
Arshi Irshad vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 August, 2014
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
Bench: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3609/2014
ARSHI IRSHAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Anas, Advocate with
petitioner in person
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for State with
SI Pawan Kumar, PS Lahori Gate
Mr. Pranay Sharma, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ORDER
% 25.08.2014 CRL.M.A. 12431/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off.
CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 & CRL.M.A. 12430/2014 1 This petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that FIR No. 132/2012 registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, under Section 324 IPC, and all the proceeding emanating therefrom, be quashed, on the ground that the matter has been settled with the complainant in terms of a settlement deed executed between the parties on 08.08.2014.
2 Issue notice.
3 Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the complainant, enter appearance and accept notice.
CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 1 of 74 It is stated that the matter arose out of an altercation between the petitioner/accused, as well as the complainant, Mehfooz Khan @ Bhoora, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 herein, whilst the complainant was having tea outside shop No. 656, Gali Saudagaran, and the petitioner was passing by on a two-wheeler scooter appears to have collided with the complainant. In the altercation that developed between the two, the complainant is stated to have been injured with a sharp instrument around the waist. It is also stated that whilst the complainant resides in that area, the petitioner works in the same area. The complainant, who is present in Court in person, is identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Pawan Kumar, Police Station Lahori Gate. He approbates the settlement that has been arrived at on 08.08.2014 and states that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further.
5 Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances; and since the parties have settled the matter, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the prosecution. He, however, suggests that looking to the nature of the altercation and in view of the fact that the matter has entailed a regular investigation and thereafter, filing of a chargesheet, after which the judicial process has also been put into motion, and the trial court has been obliged to frame charge under Section 324 IPC, it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioner is also obliged to pay some compensation. There is force in this contention. 6 Looking to the overall circumstances, and in view of the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and keeping in mind the decision 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 CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 2 of 7 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 67 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"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 be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 3 of 7 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.
29.4 On the other hand, 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.
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 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 CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 4 of 7 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.
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 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 CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 5 of 7 conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
And the judgment of this Court in Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr. in Crl. M.C. No. 6621-24/2006 decided on 3rd September, 2007, wherein it was, inter alia, held as under:-
"14. .......Peace has been brought in the locality with the intervention of the well wishers of the locality. When there is peace in locality, there will be peace in the town. When there is peace in town, there will be peace in city. When there is peace in city, there will be peace in State. When there is peace in State, there will be peace in country.....
15. The petition is according allowed. FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."
I am of the view that the a quietus be given to the matter, especially since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of success of the prosecution, and also because the parties reside and work in the same area and peace and harmony are best secured by a settlement freely arrived at.
7. Consequently, and subject to the petitioner compensating the second respondent/complainant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, which amount has been handed over by counsel for the petitioner to the complainant in court today, CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 6 of 7 the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 132/2012 registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, under Section 324 IPC, and all the proceeding emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The petition, along with accompanying application, stands disposed off in the above terms.
9. Dasti.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 25, 2014 rd CRL.M.C. 3609/2014 Page 7 of 7