Bhuri Singh v. State Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BHURI SINGH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rohit Gupta and Mr. Veenu Singh, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate.

SI Talib Khan, D-5957, PS Sangam Vihar Mr. Rohish Arora, Advocate for Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 12.08.2024 CRL.M.A. 23851/2024 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

1.

The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing FIR No.415/2021 dated 19.08.2021 registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar for offences punishable under Sections 307, 452 & 506 IPC. 2.

Material on record indicates that chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 307, 452 & 506 IPC. It is stated that the Petitioner used to sell vegetables and run a committee and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the son of Respondent No.2 used to work with the Petitioner in running the committee.

3.

It is stated that since the son of Respondent No.2 had some ongoing financial transactions with the Petitioner, the Petitioner came to the shop of Respondent No.2. It is stated that when Respondent No.2 refused to pay the money demanded by the Petitioner, which according to the Petitioner was owed by the son of Respondent No.2 regarding the committee transaction with the Petitioner, the Petitioner threatened Respondent No.2 and attacked Respondent No.2 with ice pick. Thus, the present FIR was lodged against the Petitioner.

4.

It is stated that the Petitioner has entered into a settlement with Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that he does not have any objection to quashing of the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

5.

It is stated that the Petitioner has no previous antecedents and the injuries suffered by Respondent No.2 are simple in nature. 6.

Considering the fact that the Petitioner has no previous antecedents and the injuries suffered by Respondent No.2 are simple in nature and the fact that that the parties have entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that chances of conviction in the present case are remote. The Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 has observed as under:

"14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] is The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

concerned, in Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] , this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 CrPC and the powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court.

In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 CrPC and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] , the very Bench ultimately concluded in para 29 as under: (SCC pp. 482-84) "29.

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

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 resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

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

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

therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of 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 Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5 [Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-42019.] . While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

complainant to enter into a compromise, etc." (emphasis supplied) 7.

The injuries are simple in nature. They have not been inflicted at vital organs. Parties are known to each other. Applying the aforesaid dictum to the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR. 8.

The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are present in Court today. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2 states that he has settled all the disputes with the Petitioner out of his own free will, without pressure, coercion or undue influence and states that he does not want to pursue the present case any further and requests that the present FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. The parties undertake that they will remain bound by the proceedings recorded before this Court.

9.

The parties who are present in Court today understand the implication of the present proceedings. In view of the settlement arrived at between the Parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the present proceedings. Resultantly, the FIR No.415/2021 dated 19.08.2021 registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar for offences punishable under Sections 307, 452 & 506 IPC and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 10.

Since precious judicial time and the time of Police has been wasted, this Court is inclined to impose costs on the Petitioner. The Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within three weeks from today. Copy of the receipt be filed with the Registry of this Court to show compliance of the Order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Petitioner is also directed to plant 25 trees at his own expense in his locality and nurture them. The Investigating Officer is directed to ensure that the trees are planted by the Petitioner and a Compliance Report regarding the same shall also be filed before this Court. 11.

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 12, 2024 hsk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.