Quashed

Ajay Kumar v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Apr 2024CRL.M.C./2531/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash an FIR registered for causing hurt by dangerous driving, noting that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and compensation had been paid. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the ends of justice, the Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.526/2018 under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at PS: Jahangir Puri and proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.

Ajay Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~117

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2531/2024

¶4

AJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja and Mr. Pratyaksh Sikodia, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with Insp. Dharmendra Kumar, SI Neeti, PS: Jahangir Puri and SI Satender, PS: Ashok Vihar. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶8

O R D E R % 01.04.2024

¶9

CRL.M.A. 9666/2024 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024

¶13

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.526/2018 dated 20.11.2018 under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at PS: Jahangir Puri including proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶14

As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.11.2018 at about 07:45 AM, an alleged accident took place where a white car bearing No. DL 12CJ 2834, allegedly hit and injured Respondents No. 2 and 3 near Bhalswa Flyover. A bystander took the injured to BJRM Hospital. Subsequently, the present FIR was registered.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024 Page 1 of 7

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2024 at 11:55:20

¶17

In the interregnum, Petitioner and Complainants have amicably settled the matter and a Settlement Agreement dated 12.02.2024 was executed. It was agreed that Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- each to the Complainants, out of which Rs.20,000/- each stands paid and Rs.15,000/- each were to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR. Affidavits have been filed by the complainants giving no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Balance amount of Rs.15,000/- has been paid to Respondents No. 2 and 3 by way of demand drafts bearing No. 386137 and 386136 dated 11.03.2024 in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each drawn on Union Bank of India.

¶18

Issue notice.

¶19

Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶20

Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in Court and accept notice.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP as well as Respondents No. 2 and 3. Power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties has been examined and delineated by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments. The Supreme Court has delineated the parameters following which the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised. It has been affirmed and re-affirmed that the extraordinary powers should be sparingly exercised and with care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure ends of justice and in each case, it would be dependent on the facts and circumstances that arise. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶22

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024 Page 2 of 7

¶23

¶24

“ 55 . In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

¶25

xxx xxx xxx

¶26

58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. 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. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on

¶27

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024 Page 3 of 7

¶28

¶29

its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.

¶30

xxx xxx xxx

¶31

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding.”

¶32

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024 Page 4 of 7

¶33

¶34

10. In Ramgopal and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶35

“11. True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

¶36

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

¶37

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.

¶38

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024 Page 5 of 7

¶39

¶40

There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

¶41

14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”

¶42

In view of the settlement between the parties and the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, as aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice to put a quietus to the litigation and terminate the criminal proceedings. The settlement amounts have been received by the Complainants and they do not wish to pursue the complaint. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Shivang Sharma v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 517/2022, decided on 28.02.2022 and Dalbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., CRL.M.C. 7728/2023, decided on 19.10.2023 have quashed FIRs under similar provisions, predicated on settlements between the parties therein, in the interest of justice.

¶43

Accordingly, FIR No.526/2018 dated 20.11.2018 under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at PS: Jahangir Puri, including proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶44

CRL.M.C. 2531/2024 Page 6 of 7

¶45

¶46

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶47