Quashed

Dr Surendr Prasad Singh v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC24 Aug 2018W.P.(CRL)/2498/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIRs registered under Sections 354, 354(A), 451, and 509 IPC following an amicable settlement via a Memorandum of Settlement between the petitioner and respondent, holding that further proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

What did the court decide?

FIRs Nos. 1553/2015 and 1552/2015 and all proceedings therefrom were quashed, and the petitions were disposed off.

Dr Surendr Prasad Singh Vs State & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

is further submittedby the learned counsel for the parties that based upon the said Memorandumof Settlement/CompromiseDeed dated 16.04.2018 the petitionerin W.P.(CRL) 2497/2018,who was complainantin FIR No. 1570/2015dated 03.11.2015registeredU/s 323/341/506/34IPG, PS-Neb Sarai, has been compounded.

¶3

The parties are presentin the Court and have been identifiedby their respective counsel as well as by the I.O. of the case. It is stated that in view of the fact that the parties have settled the lis amicably, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶4

In the aforesaidcircumstancesand keepingin mind the decisionof the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 see 303, holding that even a non-compoundableoffence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstancesso waiTant;by observingas under:

¶5

"58 However, certain offences which overwhelminglyand predominantly bear civilflavour 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 basicallyto the victim and the offenderand 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 theframework of its inherentpower, quash the criminalproceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,there is hardly any likelihoodof the offenderbeing convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualtyand ends ofjusticeshall be defeated."

¶6

The amicable resolutionof cases like the present one is an abiding

¶7

objective. The dictumof Gian Singh (supra)has been affirmedby the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 while observing:

¶8

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down thefollowingprinciples 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 acceptingthe settlementand quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with directionto continuewith the criminalproceedings:

¶9

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 inherentpower 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.

¶10

29.2. When theparties have reached the settlement and on that basis petitionfor quashing the criminalproceedingsis filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends ofjustice, or

¶11

(ii) toprevent abuse of theprocess ofany court.

¶12

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

¶13

29.3. Such apower is not to be exercisedin thoseprosecutions 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 CorruptionAct or the offences committedby public servants while workingin thatcapacityare not to be quashedmerelyon

¶14

¶15

the basis ofcompromisebetweenthe victim and the offender.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 injusticewould be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

¶18

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPG would fall in the category of heinous and serious offencesand 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 Section307IPC in theFIR or the charge isframed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whetherincorporationofSection307IPC is therefor the sake of it or theprosecutionhas collectedsufficientevidence,which ifproved, wouldlead toproving the charge under Section307 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/delegateparts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries sufferedby the victim can generallybe the guidingfactor. 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 theformer case it can refuse to accept the settlementand quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissiblefor the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement

¶19

between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlementbetween theparties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve theirfuture relationship.

¶20

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlementplay a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediatelyafter the alleged commissionof 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 investigationis 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 mentionedabove. 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 arguinent, normally the High Court should refrainfrom exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the casefinally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committedor not. Similarly, in those cases where the convictionis 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 resultingin acquittal of the offenderwho 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 ofsparing a convictfound guilty ofsuch a crime."

¶21

The Court is of the view that since the iis has been amicablysettled, nothing further survives in these cases and both the FIRs have been denuded

¶22

of their substratumand any furtherproceedingsemanatingtherefromwould be an exercisein futility,therefore,in the interestofjustice,the FIRs should be quashed.

¶23

In the circumstances,FIR Nos. 1553/2015 and 1552/2015 registered under sections354/354(A)/506/509IPG and 354/451/509IPG, respectively, both registeredat Police Station Neb Sarai and all proceedingsemanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶24

The petitions are disposed off in the above terms.

¶25

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶26

AUGUST 24, 2018/acm

Dr Surendr Prasad Singh v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Surendr Prasad Singh 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

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.

Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Pradeep Shukla & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Vimal Kumar & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Shree Prakash Tanwar Vs State & Ors.

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

Balram Verma & Anr. Vs the State & Ors.

Bharti Sahu & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Harman Singh & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Parul Sharma & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.