Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
VIJAY SINGH & ORS. - Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE & ORS -Respondents
CRL.M.C. No. 5009/2015
Decided On : 9-12-2015
Mr. N S Dalal with Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Kaushik Dey, Advocate SI Karan Pal, PS Kotla Mubarakpur
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the settlement between the parties and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
QUASHING - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 323/452/341/354/506/34 IPC - The court discussed the settlement between the parties and the principles guiding the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 to emphasize the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the factors to be considered while exercising the power to quash criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered against them for various offences under the IPC, as the parties had settled their disputes amicably.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the settlement between the parties and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR should be quashed in light of the settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settlement between the parties and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Vide the present petition, petitioners seeks direction thereby quashing the FIR No. 90/2007 registered at police station Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 323/452/341/354/506/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent no.2 who thereafter vide settlement deed dated 16.10.2015, settled the dispute with the petitioners.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that a cross-FIR NO. 690/2006 was also registered between the parties before the same police station for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 IPC and the parties have settled both the FIRs mentioned above.
4. Respondent no.2 is personally present in Court through counsel. Learned counsel, on instructions submits that the petitioners and respondent no.2 have amicably settled their disputes. Thus, respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners. The said respondent has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
5. The Voters Card of Mr. Chandan Singh, petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kumar, respondent who are present in person, have been produced, bearing nos. UJED549097 and UJEO549105 respectively. (original seen and returned).
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that after the investigation, police has filed the charge sheet. Charges have been framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute along with the FIR no. 690/2006, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
7. 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.”
8. 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 the criminal proceedings:
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 power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are no
