Mansoor Ahmed & ORS v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 900/2016 MANSOOR AHMED & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, A.S.C. for the State/R-1.

Ms.Kohika, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 21.03.2016 Crl.M.A. No.4935/2016 (Exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 900/2016 1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No.338/2014 under Sections 336 IPC which was converted under Section 304A IPC, PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. 2.

Briefly stating the prosecution case is that FIR No. 338/14 dated 21.12.2014 was registered on the basis of information received about collapse of a building in Gali Kashmeriyan, near Chaurasi Ghanta, Delhi.

The information in respect of the incident was registered on receipt of information from PCR at 6:30 pm vide DD No. 25 PPT. In the FIR it was also mentioned that the building that has collapsed was not got repaired by the owner of the said building and the condition of the building was very poor and endangered human life and safety. Due to collapse of building one child namely Chandan aged about six years was removed from under the debris of that building. He was taken to the hospital and was declared 'brought dead'. Investigation in the matter was completed and charge sheet was filed against the owners of the building namely Manzoor Ahmed and Pappi Anishddin. During investigation it was revealed that these accused persons had purchased this house on 5.3.2012 from the previous owner to construct flats there but as the same was not vacated by the tenants the construction of flats could not be started. The petitioner/accused persons have also failed to get the building repaired resulting in this accident. 3.

In the charge sheet it was also mentioned that during the pendency of the investigation, the petitioners compromised with the parents of the deceased Chandan hence charge sheet was filed without arrest as per direction of the Honb'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have amicably settled the dispute with the parents of the deceased Chandan and have also paid compensation to them and are ready to abide by the direction of this Court.

4.

Today the petitioners are present in person alongwith counsel. Respondent no.2 - father of the deceased and Smt.Santara - mother of the deceased are also present alongwith their counsel. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner have paid a total compensation of `3,25,000/- in cash to the respondent No.2 - father of the deceased i.e. a sum of `50,000/- on the date of death of

Chandan, `2 lacs at the time of settlement. The petitioners have further paid `75,000/- today in the Court to the parents of the deceased. 6.

Sh.Bulaki/respondent No.2 - father of the deceased and Smt. Santara - mother of the deceased submit that they have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and that they have also received a total sum of ` 3.25 lacs from the petitioners as compensation. They submit that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioners. 7.

The FIR registered against the present Petitioners is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 336/304-A IPC, which are noncompoundable offences. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code.

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.

Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 submit that after the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore the FIR in question and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 9.

Learned ASC for the State submits that since the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and that the petitioners have also paid compensation to the parents of the deceased, appropriate orders may be passed.

10.

In view of the legal position laid down in Gian Singh's case (Supra) and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the

criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court. 11.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.338/2014 under Sections 336/304-A IPC), PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

MARCH 21, 2016 'st'/'hkaur'