Allowed

Ramesh Bakshi v. the State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)& Anr.

Delhi HC6 Jul 2018W.P.(CRL)/223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the application of the petitioner seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC due to a settlement, the Court directed payment of compensation to the victim and subsequently quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 01/2018 under section 324/34 IPC and all related proceedings are quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000 to the complainant.

Ramesh Bakshi Vs the State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)& Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 223/2018

¶4

RAMESH BAKSHI

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Pradeep Khatri and Mr. Pranay Garg, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI)& ANR

¶9

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Purnima Malik, Adv. for Mr. Avi Singh, Adv. for R-1. WSI Pooja Yadav, P.S. South Campus, New Delhi.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶11

O R D E R % 06.07.2018

¶12

This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 01/2018 under section 324/34 IPC registered at Police Station – South Campus on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the compromise has been annexed to the petition; which is more in the nature of a letter addressed to the SHO stating that the issue has been settled between the parties. The complainant is present in the Court. He does not have a counsel. Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed his counsel for the day. The complainant has been identified by the IO of the case, as well as his counsel. Mr. Prabhakar states upon

¶13

instructions that though a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, the Court may consider awarding some amount of compensation to the injured/complainant as he had to spend monies on medication because of the injury suffered by him on account of actions of the petitioner.

¶14

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 SCC 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:

¶15

“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 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.”

¶16

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. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 while observing:

¶17

“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

¶18

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:

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC 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 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 proving 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. 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 latter 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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 chargesheet 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 whether the offence under Section 307 IPC 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 of such a crime.”

¶29

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the victim/complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this amount shall be paid to the victim in his bank account bearing no 50289137535, Allahabad Bank, D.R.M. Office Branch latest by 11.07.2018. Since the complainant himself does not wish to pursue the complaint any further, the FIR is denuded of the essential substratum for any further proceedings.

¶30

In the circumstances, FIR No. 01/2018 under section 324/34 IPC registered at Police Station – South Campus and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶31

Any default in payment either in terms of the amount or by the date shall automatically be visited with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which too shall be paid in the said bank account of the complainant within two weeks thereof. In case of default, it will be open to the complainant to move an application for revival of the petition.

¶32

The petition is disposed off in the above terms.

¶33

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶34

JULY 06, 2018/acm

Ramesh Bakshi v. the State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)& Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Bakshi v. the State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)& 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

Md. Saheen Abbas @ Shanu Vs State

Avinash Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State & Ors.

Sanjay Jha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shumayla @ Suhani Singh Sengar & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kalu @ Rajinder Vs State

Nitin Verma Vs State

Girija Dabas Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Avinash Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State & Ors.

Raj Singh Vs State & Anr.

Suman Vs the State

Suich Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manjeet Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.