Delhi High Court
Rohit Yadav @ Sunny vs Shakuntala @ Babli & Ors on 14 October, 2014
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
Bench: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3145/2014
ROHIT YADAV @ SUNNY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
SHAKUNTALA @ BABLI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State
with ASI Nihal Singh and ASI Sant
Ram, PS Chhawala.
Complainant in person with her
husband.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.361/2014 registered under Sections 451/356/379 IPC at Police Station Chhawala, Delhi on 24th June, 2014 at the instance of the complainant, Shakuntala, who is also arrayed as respondent No.1 in these proceedings, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled.
2. Issue notice.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Complainant/respondent No.1-Shakuntala is present in person and is identified by Investigating Officer/ASI Nihal Singh Police Station CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 Page 1 of 7 Chhawala. The husband of the complainant Sh. Dharambir is also present. He is also identified by the Investigating Officer.
4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant against the petitioner, who is also her neighbour. As per the FIR, the complainant is a house wife and on 23rd June, 2014 at about 9:30-10:00 P.M. when the complainant was asleep while her husband was attending to the agricultural land, the petitioner is stated to have entered her house and snatched a gold chain weighing 10 gms. from her neck. It is also alleged that the petitioner had an altercation with the complainant's son, Nitesh, a couple of days earlier. The petitioner is stated to be pursuing his B.A. through correspondence course.
5. APP for the State submits that the matter is still pending investigation. He further submits that since the matter appears to have arisen out of some dispute between neighbours which thereafter escalated to the incident in question, and since the parties have now amicably settled the matter and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting with the investigation no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the same. He further states that looking to the overall circumstances it will be appropriate if the petitioner pays some compensation to the complainant.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay any adequate compensation to the complainant as this Court may direct. In this context petitioner has also handed over a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash to the complainant in the Court today.
7. The complainant states that as she has settled all the disputes and has also received the aforesaid compensation, she is no longer interested in proceeding with the matter and that the same be closed so that the parties CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 Page 2 of 7 who are neighbours are able to live in harmony. An affidavit of husband of the complainant has also been handed over in the Court today to the effect that the matter has been compromised and the FIR be quashed. Same is taken on record.
8. 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 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 CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 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. 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, 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 CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 Page 4 of 7 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.
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 CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 Page 5 of 7 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."
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 CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 Page 6 of 7 ordered to be dropped."
I am of the opinion that since the parties are neighbours and have amicably settled the matter with a view to maintain harmony and compensation has also been duly received by the complainant; and also in view of the fact that the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution; it is best if the matter, which is at the initial stage of investigation, is given a quietus.
9. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.361/2014 registered under Sections 451/356/379 IPC at Police Station Chhawala, Delhi on 24th June, 2014, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
10. The petition stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA JUDGE OCTOBER 14, 2014/AK CRL.M.C. 3145/2014 Page 7 of 7