Delhi High Court
Amit Jain & Anr vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 19 February, 2016
Author: P.S.Teji
Bench: P.S.Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4807/2015
Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016
AMIT JAIN & ANR .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Komal Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Amit Jain and Sh. Raj Kumar Jain for quashing of FIR No.233/2007 dated 15.05.2007, under Sections 323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi arrived at between petitioners and the respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Trilok Chand Pali on 20.07.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 1 of 9 by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the accused persons blamed him for the sealing of the factory which was on the ground floor of the house of the complainant. On 10.03.2007, the complainant was hurled abuses by the accused persons and both the accused persons caught hold of the complainant and started abusing him. Accused-Amit @ Babua caught hold of the hand of the complainant and when the complainant resisted, the accused chew his right hand thumb and pushed him downstairs. Due to the same, the complainant received injuries on his right knee, left cheek and blood started oozing out of his thumb. Thereafter, the police reached the spot and caught hold of the accused-Amit @ Babua and took both the accused and the complainant to the hospital. On the same day i.e. 10.03.2007, accused-Raj Kumar came along with 4/5 persons and broke the seal of the factory and complainant informed the police about the same and thus he was also arrested. Thereafter, FIR bearing no. 146/07 was registered on 26.03.2007 under Sections 323/341/506 IPC against the complainant and two other persons in which they Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 2 of 9 were arrested and released on bail.
The respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the direction of the learned Magistrate, the FIR in question was lodged against the petitioners. A charge sheet was also filed by the IO against the petitioners. During the pendency of the trail, on 09.07.2015, the parties were referred to the mediation cell where they resolved all their issues amicably.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report, it is agreed that the respective accused persons and complainants of FIRs bearing no. 349/2007, 62/2008, 146/2007 and 233/2007 registered at Police station Subzi Mandi shall compound the offences arising out of the said FIRs with each other without any compensation by initiating appropriate legal proceedings for quashing of FIRs and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIRs or for disposal of the said case in accordance with law before the referral Court on or before 31.08.2015 and in the said proceedings the concerned parties shall cooperate with each other. It is agreed that the above settlement is without prejudice to the outcome of the suit Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 3 of 9 bearing no. 261/10 titled as "Suresh Kumari v. NDPL" and also without prejudice to the appeal filed by Suresh Kumari which is pending before ATMCD. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 4 of 9
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) 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 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 Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 5 of 9 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 6 of 9 where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 7 of 9 and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 324 IPC is a Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 8 of 9 non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.233/2007 dated 15.05.2007, under Sections 323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2016 dd Crl.M.C. 4807/2015 Page 9 of 9