Delhi High Court
Arun Kumar Pandey @ Anil Kumar & Anr vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 4 December, 2014
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
Bench: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5280/2014
ARUN KUMAR PANDEY @
ANIL KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Ketan Madan, Adv. with petitioners.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor.
ASI Ram Kishan P.S. I.P.Estate.
Smt. Shanti, Widow of deceased, in person.
Sh. Kishan Prakash, son of deceased, in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No.18013/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.
Crl.M.C. No.5280/20141. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.100/2010 registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC at police station I.P. Estate, on 22.07.2010, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the accused / petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased Khanchand.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice. The widow of the deceased, Smt. Shanti, and Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 1 of 7 also the son of the deceased, Krishan Prakash; who are arrayed as respondents 2 and 5 respectively; are present in person. They are also identified by the Investigating Officer, ASI Ram Kishan.
4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged as a result of an accident that took place on 22.07.2010 at around 3:15 pm in the afternoon when the first petitioner, Arun Kumar Pandey @ Anil Kumar, was driving a twowheeler at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi, and seriously injured Khanchand, who ultimately died few days later at the L.N.J.P. Hospital, New Delhi.
5. Thereafter, the parties are stated to have entered into a settlement at the Delhi Mediation Centre, His Hazari Courts, New Delhi on 15.09.2014, where the matter was referred by the MACT court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. A copy of the Settlement Agreement has also been annexed to this petition where both the petitioners had undertaken to pay a total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to respondents 2 and 5. The remaining respondents 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are stated to have given their no objections to the aforesaid settlement.
6. Counsel for the petitioners states that the second petitioner, Smt. Tulsi Devi, is not an accused in the aforesaid FIR and no charge has been framed against her, and that she has been impleaded as one of the petitioners herein because she was also party to the aforesaid settlement and in the proceedings before the MACT court.
7. Out of the agreed amount of Rs.2 lakhs, a sum of Rs.90,000/- has been paid to the respondents on 15.09.2014. Thereafter, on 16.10.2014, the MACT court in Suit No.35/14 directed the remaining of Rs.1,10,000/- to be put in a Fixed Deposit with the Punjab National Bank, Gokhle Market, New Delhi, for a period of 30 days, so that the same may be released to the decree holders on their moving a joint application after the expiry of 30 Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 2 of 7 days. This direction came to be passed since all the respondents/ decree holders, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 9 to this petition, were not present when the matter was taken up by that court.
8. Respondents 2 and 5 who are present in person, also affirm the aforesaid settlement and state that they shall take appropriate steps to have the aforesaid amount, which is lying deposited with the Punjab National Bank, released to them, and that they do not have any further grievance in this matter; and all their claims and dues stand settled. They further state that they do not wish to pursue this matter any further and the proceedings be closed.
9. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances where the dispute between the petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased Khanchand, who was aged about 70 years, and a retired farmer, lost his life due to an unfortunate accident; has been amicably settled on terms before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, on a reference from the MACT court; and where the legal representatives of the deceased are no longer interested in pursuing the matter, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.
10. Consequently, and looking to 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 basis of a settlement 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 having arisen out of Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 3 of 7 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."
And also in 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:Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 4 of 7
(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 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 Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 5 of 7 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 6 of 7 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 also of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself where the legal representatives of the deceased Khanchand have arrived at a mutual settlement with the petitioners on terms after reference in that behalf by the MACT court to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi; and the legal representatives of the deceased are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby diminishing the chances of its success.
11. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.100/2010 registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC at police station I.P. Estate, on 22.07.2010, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
12. The petition is disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J DECEMBER 04, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 Page 7 of 7