The main legal point established in the judgment is the sparing exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing criminal proceedings based on settlement between the parties in cases with civil character.

SURESH KAIT, J.

Crl. M.A.No.9937/2015 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. 2780/2015

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 739/2010 registered at PS-Mongol Puri, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 288/304 A IPC against the petitioner.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that initially the case under Sections 288/337 IPC was registered against the petitioner. However, the chargesheet against the petitioner has been filed under Sections 288/304A IPC. Ld. Counsel further submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint made by respondent no.2, wife of the deceased. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed. However, the charges are yet to be framed. Meanwhile, petitioner has amicably settled the dispute with the respondent no. 2 by paying compensation of Rs. 2 Lac, who has accepted the same and prayed that the present petition may be allowed.

3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the Court with her father-in-law Mr. Dukhu Mandal, S/o, Mahadev Mandal and submits that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner and received the an amount of Rs.2 Lac as per the compromise vide dated 01.07.2015. Thus, they do not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner and if the present petition is allowed, she has no objection.

4. On the other hand, ld. APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation Police has filed the chargesheet, however, the charges are yet to be framed. Further submits that initially case under Sections 288/337 IPC was registered against the petitioner. However, the Police has filed the chargesheet under Sections 288/304 A IPC against the petitioner. Since, respondent no. 2 has settled the disputes with the petitioner, received the agreed amount and does not want to pursue the case further against the petitoner, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. ....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.”

6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are 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 t