Mahendra Kumar & ORS. v. State NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

$~25 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAHENDRA KUMAR & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr.

Vinod Yadav, Advocate alongwith All Petitioners-in-Person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Raj Kumar Dahiya, APP for the State alongwith ASI Dilbagh Hussain & SI Shiv Lal.

All Respondents (Presentin-Person).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 03.07.2024 CRL.M.A. 19027/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of annexures) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The present application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 477/2020 dated 17.11.2020, registered at police station Tigri (District South), for offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). The present FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2. The Chargesheet has already been filed in the present case.

4.

It is alleged that, on 16.11.2020, an altercation took place between the petitioners and the complainant. This altercation arose The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

from an oral argument that had occurred between the nephew of Petitioner No. 2 and the complainant, on 12.11.2020. 5.

Another cross FIR dated 07.01.2021 was also registered at the instance of petitioners against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8, being FIR No.8/2021, at Police Station Tigri, for offences under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are neighbors and live in the same vicinity. He submits that an altercation took place between the parties, but they have since buried their disputes with the intervention of family, friends and relatives and have decided to live peacefully in future. 7.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.06.2024, on their own free will, without any pressure, force, coercion, or undue influence. 8.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have also paid a total amount of ₹3,00,000/- towards medical expenses as compensation.

9.

The petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 10.

On being asked, Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 state that they are satisfied with the compensation amount and have decided to bury their disputes and live peacefully in the future. 11.

The petitioners undertake that they would not indulge in any such activity and have also tendered an unconditional apology for their conduct.

12.

The offences under Sections 323 and 341 are compoundable whereas offence under Section 307 of the IPC is noncompoundable in nature. 13.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 :- "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:

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.

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

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.

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."

(emphasis supplied) 14.

Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 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 noncompoundable. 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 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) 15.

It is not in dispute that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC as alleged cannot be termed to be in personam. However, Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have unequivocally submitted before this Court that the FIR was lodged on a misunderstanding where they The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

misunderstood the accident to be a deliberate attempt by the petitioners to hurt Respondent Nos. 2 to 8. It is stated that the parties reside in the same vicinity and have amicably settled their disputes. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the continuation of the proceedings would only cause harassment and heartburn to the parties.

16.

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 exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. 17.

However, keeping in mind the fact that charges have already been framed in the case arising out of FIR No. 477/2020, and the State machinery has been put to motion, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost. 18.

In view of the above, FIR No. 477/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of ₹10,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund and ₹10,000/- to be deposited with the New Delhi Bar Association (Patiala House) within a period of four weeks from the date.

19.

The petitioners are directed to provide a copy of the receipt of deposit of cost to the concerned IO/ SHO.

20.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 3, 2024 'Aman'

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