Allowed

Monish Alam v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Delhi HC1 Oct 2024CRL.M.C./3673/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered for offences under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338 arising from a road accident. Relying on settled principles from Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, the court held that the settlement, unconditional apology, and remote possibility of conviction justify quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of the court's process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.168/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Monish Alam Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~79

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 3673/2024

¶4

MONISH ALAM		.....P	etitioner
Through:	Mr. Mohd.	Zub	air, Mr.
	Iftkhar Ahm	ed	& Mr.
	Zakir Khan,	Adv	s. along
	with petitione	r in	person.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT	OF DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through:	Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State. SI Himanshu, PS Jafrabad.
	Mr. Rahis Ahmad, Mr.
	Vijay Kumar Sharma &
	Mr. Sunny, Adv. for R-4.
	R-3 HC Shyamveer, PCR
	(South-East) & R-4 HC
	Vikas Kumar, 3^rdBattalion in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

¶9

01.10.2024

¶10

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) seeking quashing of FIR No.168/2021 dated 26.04.2021, registered at Police Station Jafrabad, for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case.

¶11

It is alleged that on the date of the incident, the petitioner was riding his scooty on the wrong side and the same collided with the scooty of Respondent No.2. It is alleged that the accident led to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 sustaining injuries.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 09/10/2024 at 16:38:07

¶14

Injuries caused to the respondents are stated to be simple in nature.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered pursuant to an accident in which three persons were injured. He submits that the injured victims have already settled the dispute and they wish to live their lives peacefully in the future.

¶16

He submits that the petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology for his conduct and undertakes to not repeat the same in the future.

¶17

The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes on their own free will, without any undue coercion, pressure or misrepresentation. It is stated that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have also entered into settlement dated 06.05.2024 to this effect.

¶18

On 08.05.2024, Respondent No. 2 had appeared in person before this Court and stated that he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR. He stated that he has been compensated for the injuries caused and he has no grievance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was exempted from personal appearance before this Court. 7. The petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are present person in the Court. They have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 state that they are satisfied with the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner. 9. They submit that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and have no objection if the same is quashed.

¶20

Offence under Section 279 of the IPC is non

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 09/10/2024 at 16:38:07

¶23

compoundable whereas offences under Section 337/338 of the IPC are compoundable.

¶24

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-

¶25

“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:

¶26

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.

¶27

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:

¶28

(i) ends of justice, or

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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 09/10/2024 at 16:38:07

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.”

¶35

(emphasis supplied)

¶36

Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr . : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶37

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶38

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶39

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 09/10/2024 at 16:38:07

¶42

offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶43

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶44

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶45

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶46

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶47

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶48

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 09/10/2024 at 16:38:07

¶51

settled the dispute.

¶52

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶53

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶54

(emphasis supplied)

¶55

From the perusal of FIR and the documents annexed with the present petition, it appears to be a case of accident where the simple injuries were suffered by the victims. Given the fact that the dispute has been settled between the parties and Respondent No.2 has stated that he is satisfied with the compensation while Respondent No. 3 and 4 are satisfied with the unconditional apology tendered by petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, when the injured victims have amicably resolved the matter with the petitioner, it would be improbable to secure a conviction in the facts of the present case. 14. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to

¶56

¶57

exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶58

In view of the above, FIR No.168/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶59

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶60

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶61

OCTOBER 1, 2024 “SK”

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

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 09/10/2024 at 16:38:07

Monish Alam v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monish Alam v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

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

Shakuntala Devi Vs State & Anr.

Narender Sahariya Vs Manju Sahariya

Jagbir Singh Vs the State and Anr. NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr.

Arun Goel & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Genesis Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sanjana Verma

Pinki @ Ritu Singh & Anr. Vs Rajnikant & Ors.