Surendera Mohan v. State & ANR
$~53 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2026/2017 SURENDERA MOHAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sunil Kumar Bhatt, Adv.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms.Archi Vashistha, Proxy for Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC.
SI Ajeet Kumar PS C.R. Park.
Mr.Prashant Singh, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R
% 19.07.2017 Crl.M.A.11299/2017 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(Crl.) 2026/2017 The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.451/2014 dated 07.12.2014 (PS Chitranjan Park) which was initially registered under sections 279/337 of the IPC. Later section 338 of the IPC was also added. On the day of the incident, an accident took place where respondent no.2 received injuries. It is submitted that petitioner was driving his car and the respondent no.2, the victim, was on his bicycle. This Court is not going into the question as to who was responsible for the accident as from the narration in the FIR, it appears that there was contributory negligence.
Be that as it may, this writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the petitioner and respondent no.2 are senior citizens and for the accident and injuries suffered by respondent no.2, he has been paid Rs.58,000/- by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Apart from this, the petitioner also, as a gesture of goodwill is ready to pay and has paid Rs.50,000/- by way of draft vide DD No.687054 dated 18.07.2017 drawn from Federal Bank in the favour of respondent no.2 which he has received in the Court to his full satisfaction.
Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court feels inclined to quash the subject FIR.
In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of any criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justice demands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end and peace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only be ordered for securing the ends of justice.
The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra):
"58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc.
or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."
[Refer to B.S.
Joshi, (2003) SCC 675;
Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) SCC 1.] Considering the aforesaid facts, the FIR No.451/2014 dated 07.12.2014 (PS Chitranjan Park) which was initially registered under sections 279/337/338 of the IPC and all other attendant proceedings are quashed.
The petition is disposed of in terms of the above. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 19, 2017 ab