Vishal Kumar Karan v. The State Government Of NCT Of Delhi
$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6979/2022 VISHAL KUMAR KARAN ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr.Devendra Kumar, Adv.
Petitioner present in person.
versus THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:
Mr.Aman Usman, APP.
SI H Gangte, PS Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
Respondent no.2 present in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 21.03.2024 1.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No. 0345/2022 registered at Police Station: Safdarjung Enclave, South West (Delhi), under Sections 376/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), along with all other proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a settlement.
2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have amicably settled their inter se disputes and have entered into a settlement vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.12.2022. 3.
The respondent no.2 is present in Court today and she has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer (IO), and she reaffirms the settlement and states that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner out of her own free will and without any coercion. The respondent no.2 submits that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. She has been explained about the consequence of withdrawal of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
the said FIR, however, she still maintains that she does not wish to pursue her complaint against the petitioner.
4.
I have perused the contents of the FIR and also the settlement between the parties.
5.
Keeping in view the fact that the respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue her complaint any further, as also the Settlement arrived at between the parties, I find that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings of the present FIR as it would create further acrimony between the parties and will be an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer.
6.
In reaching the above conclusion, I am also guided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 15 SCC 44, wherein, it was held as under: "11. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paras 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab "29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction 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.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 307IPC in the FIR or the charge framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307IPC 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 307IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.
It 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307IPC 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 307IPC 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."
12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.
13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power."
7.
Guided by the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its judgments in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 641; and, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
8.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 0345/2022 registered at Police Station: Safdarjung Enclave, South West (Delhi), under Sections 376/506/509 of IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are quashed. NAVIN CHAWLA, J MARCH 21, 2024/Arya/RP Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.