Hari Shyam Singh & ORS. v. State Of NCT Delhi & ANR.

$~107 & 108 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 1498/2024 HARI SHYAM SINGH & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Shivam Deep Singh, Adv. along with P-2, P-3, P-6, P-8 to P-10, P-14 to P-17 in person.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr.

Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Nitin Kumar, PS Harsh Vihar.

Mr. Vipin Bansal, Mr.

Ajay Bansal and Ms.

Seema Dogra, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

+ CRL.M.C. 1499/2024 AJIT KUMAR CHAUBEY & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Vipin Bansal, Mr.

Ajay Bansal and Ms.

Seema Dogra, Advs. along with P-1 to P-5 in person.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr.

Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Nitin Kumar, PS Harsh Vihar.

Mr. Shivam Deep Singh, Adv. for R-2 along with R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 04.10.2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

1.

The present petitions are filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 323/2004 dated 11.11.2004, for offences under Sections 147/148/149/506/323/188/382 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), and FIR No. 314/2004 dated 06.11.2004, for offences under Sections 147/148/149/506/341/336 of the IPC, both registered at Police Station Dilshad Garden, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

The cross FIRs were registered in regard to an altercation that took place at the factory premises due to some unrest between the management and workers.

3.

FIR No. 323/2004 was registered at the instance of the management of the factory whereas FIR No. 314/2004 was registered at the instance of the some of the workers working in the factory at that time.

4.

It is averred that chargesheets have been filed in the present cases and offences under Sections 323/325 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added in FIR No. 314/2004.

5.

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the incident happened almost two decades back. They submit that most of the parties are senior most citizens and have settled their disputes. 6.

They submit that the charges are yet to be framed in the present cases. They submit that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and wish to lead their lives peacefully in the future.

7.

The present petitions are filed on the ground that the matters have been amicably settled between the parties by way of settlement agreement dated 16.03.2022, on their own free will, without any pressure and coercion.

8.

Some of the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 1498/2024 are not The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

present in Court. The rest of the parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

9.

The petitions are supported with duly sworn affidavits of all the respective petitioners and respondents / complainants. 10.

The respective complainants/ victims, on being asked, state that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs and have no objection if the proceedings are quashed against all the accused persons.

11.

The parties submit that they are apologetic for their behaviour and undertake to not indulge in such activities in the future.

12.

The parties are bound to the said undertaking. 13.

Offences under Sections 506/323/325/341 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offences under Sections 147/148/149/188/382/336 of the IPC are non-compoundable. Offences under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 are also non-compoundable.

14.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') can quash 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 the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :- "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 authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

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.

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

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

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.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

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.

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/delicate 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.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

cases where the settlement is arrived at 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 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 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."

(emphasis supplied) 15.

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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.

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.

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 settled the dispute.

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 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."

(emphasis supplied) 16.

The offences as alleged are serious in nature. However, in the present matters, the respective injured persons, including the complainants, have stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, it is unlikely that the present FIRs will result in conviction when the injured persons do not wish to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

pursue the cases. The parties are stated to be working in the same factory at the relevant time. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, the parties have already suffered due to the long pendency of the matters. Keeping in view the aforesaid nature of disputes and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the disputes alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

17.

In view of the above, FIR No. 323/2004 and FIR No. 314/2004, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

18.

The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 19.

A copy of this order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 4, 2024 "SK"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.