Allowed

Ajay @ Sunil & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC21 Aug 2018W.P.(CRL)/1313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed two FIRs registered under IPC Sections 448/380 after the parties reached an amicable settlement via a Compromise Deed dated 21.03.2018. The court held that since the complainants did not wish to pursue the matter and the settlement addressed all disputes, continuation of proceedings would be futile. Costs were awarded to大理人民救助基金.

What did the court decide?

FIRs No. 1579/2015 & 1580/2015 and all proceedings therefrom were quashed. Petitioners directed to pay Rs. 5,000 each to CMDRF Kerala.

Ajay @ Sunil & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

settled between the parties by way of a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 21.03.2018. Since the petitioners' counsel is not present today, accordingly, Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate, who is present in the Court, is appointed as their counsel for the day. The parties are present in the Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the complainants states that as per the settlement, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid to the petitioners and the property being House No.-19, Gali No-15, A-1 Block, Khasra No-136/23/2, Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi, has been handed over to the complainants. The parties undertake to abide by the terms of the settlement. Their undertaking is accepted. Since, the Us has been amicably settled, the learned counsel for the complainants states, upon instructions, that the complainants do not wish to pursue the matter any further.

¶7

In the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 see 303, holding 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; by observing as under:

¶8

"58 However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of 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

¶9

¶10

settlement, there ,s hardly any likelihood of the offender being shall TTf be casualty , and ends of Justice criminal shall be proceedings, defeated. " justice

¶11

The amicable resolution of cases like the present one is an abiding objective. The dictum of Gian Singh (supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Stale of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 see 466 while observing:

¶12

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would e guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 o) the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶13

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.

¶14

-r'

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process ofany court.

¶17

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

not pmate m nature and have a serious impact on society Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed u^er 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPG would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 IPG 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 IPG is there for the sake of It or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which proving the charge under Section 307 IPG. 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 si^jered 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

¶24

former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be P~hlefor 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 ^^ttl^^ent between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶25

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 ^^tter IS still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal m 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 to a conclusion as to ^hether the offence under Section 307IPC 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 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty ofsuch a crime. "

¶26

Since the complainants themselves do not wish to pursue their

¶27

¶28

complaint against the petitioners, the substratum of the complaints/FIRs dissipates and any further proceeding apropos the same FIRs would be an exercise in futility. Since the parties have settled their Us amicably, nothing survives in the matter. It would therefore be in the interest of justice to quash the FIRs in question. Therefore, FIR No. 1579/2015 & FIR No. 1580/2015 dated 31/12/2015 registered under sections 448/380 IPC at Police Station, Burari, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶29

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that because of the unwarranted work load, caused by them upon the administrative machinery engaged in the maintenance of law and order, as their expression of remorse and contrition, they voluntarily undertake to pay some costs. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to pay a costs of Rs. 5,000/- each to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund, Govt. of Kerala and a cheque for the said amount favouring "Principal Secretary (Finance) CMDRF Kerala" shall be delivered to the office of the Resident Commissioner for the State of Kerala at 3, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi within two weeks.

¶30

The petitions stand disposed-off in the above terms.

¶31

NAJMIWAZIRI, J

¶32

AUGUST 21, 2018/rw

Ajay @ Sunil & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay @ Sunil & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State NCT of Delhi

Amit Fatnani & Ors. Vs Satte of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rahul Kundra Vs the State & Anr.

Sukhmeet Singh Anand Vs State of NCT Delhi

Noor Bano & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Anand Kumar Paul & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Balram Verma & Anr. Vs the State & Ors.

Ram Rattan & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs State & Anr.

Anjana Khaneja Vs State Bank of Patiala

Sudesh Kumar Sehgal Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Furkan Malik & Ors. Vs the State (G.N.C.T of Delhi)& Ors.

Ajay @ Sunil & Ors. Vs State & Anr.