Delhi High Court - Orders
Ms. Manisha Grover vs State & Ors on 4 October, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 349/2020
MS. MANISHA GROVER ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray,
Mr. Abhik Kumar and Mr. Pradeep
Verma, Advocates.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with
SI Amit, PS Rajouri Garden and SI
Mangal Ram, PS Vikas Puri.
Mr. Rinku Mathur, Advocate for the
complainants with R-2 to 4 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 04.10.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.
CRL.M.C. 349/20201. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.473/2015 under Sections 279/304-A IPC registered at PS Rajouri Garden on the ground that parties have settled the matter.
2. The above noted FIR was registered pursuant to information received from the DDU Hospital in relation to the admission of an unknown person admitted pursuant to an accident. Thereafter, during the course of investigation CCTV footages were collected. These CCTV footages have been sent through E-mail to this Court, which have been seen. The video Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.M.C.349/2020 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:05.10.2021 09:31:58 footages showed that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a slow speed, however suddenly the deceased came from behind the barricade, resulting in the accident and immediately, after the accident the petitioner and the co- driver shifted the victim to the hospital.
3. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Pramod Kumar being his wife, daughter and the minor son, respectively. They state that they have settled the matter and before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as also the mother of the deceased received a total sum of ₹14,07,000/-. The learned MACT also noted that legal heirs of the deceased have equal shares in the amount i.e. 25% each and the amount of the two minor children, for the reason at that time the respondent No. 3 was also a minor, should be kept in a fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority and 50% of their share will be kept in a fixed deposit for 5 years and no loan shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit. However, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would be entitled to receive the quarterly interest.
4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are present in Court and identified by the learned Counsel. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on their behalf and respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.4 and on behalf of her mother- in-law state that they have received over and above the settlement amount of ₹14,07,000/-, a sum of ₹2,75,000/- by way of a demand draft bearing No. 013324 dated 22nd September, 2021 drawn on HDFC Bank in the name of respondent No. 2 and now they do not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.M.C.349/2020 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:05.10.2021 09:31:585. Quashing of the above noted FIR has been sought on the basis of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the decision reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641: Prabhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated."
6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited as (2019) 5 SCC 688: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., referring to the various earlier decisions summarized the law relating to the powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of settlement as under:
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.M.C.349/2020 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:05.10.2021 09:31:5815.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.M.C.349/2020 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:05.10.2021 09:31:5815.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
7. In the decision reported as (2014) 15 SCC 29 State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi the Supreme Court also noted that it is the Court's duty to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement.
8. It is, thus, necessary to advert to the facts of the case. The accident took place at 6.45 a.m. As noted above, this Court has perused the CCTV footage which has captured the accident. It is evident that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner but on a slow speed, however in view of the fact that a barricade was posted and the deceased suddenly came from behind the barricade, the accident took place. Further, the conduct of the petitioner was not where she ran away from the spot rather the co-driver of the petitioner and the petitioner picked up the injured, got him admitted to the hospital and only thereafter, left the victim.
9. Considering the facts of the case and that the parties including the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as also the mother of the deceased, whose statement has been recorded before the learned MACT and is not in a position to come before this Court as she is old and living in a village at Mujaffarpur, this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.M.C.349/2020 Page 5 of 6 Signing Date:05.10.2021 09:31:58 Court deems it fit to quash the FIR in question. Consequently, the FIR No.473/2015 under Sections 279/304-A IPC registered at PS Rajouri Garden and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
10. Petition is disposed of.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 04, 2021 PB Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.M.C.349/2020 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:05.10.2021 09:31:58