Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
SACHIN & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS – Respondents
CRL. M.C. No. 740/2016
Decided On : 22-02-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Jitendra Sethi & Mr. Akash Sharma, Advs. with petitioners.
Mr. Satya Narain Vashisht, APP for the State with SI Yogendra Kumar, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi in person for R1.
The Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, when the parties have amicably settled their disputes.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 307/323/427/34 of the IPC - 2 SCC (L&S) 998, 2014 6 SCC 466
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 475/ 2015 registered for offences under Sections 307/323/427/34 of the IPC. The parties had amicably settled their disputes, and the respondents did not wish to pursue the case further.
Finding of the Court:
The Court recognized the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC but exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to accept the compromise, citing relevant case law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court should quash the criminal proceedings in light of the settlement between the parties, despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principles laid down in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the exercise of caution and discretion in quashing criminal proceedings based on settlements.
Final Decision: The Court quashed FIR No.475/2015 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, allowing the petition with no order as to cost.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 475/ 2015 registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi for the offences punishable under Sections 307/323/427/34 of the 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, Sunil as a scuffle took place due to misunderstanding, wherein petitioners and respondents No.3 to 5 have also received injuries.
Consequently, a cross case vide FIR No.476/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPC was also registered against respondent Nos.2 to 5. The matter is pending for investigation with the police. Meanwhile, the respondents No.2 to 5 and petitioners have amicably settled their disputes vide settlement deed dated 08.10.2015. The parties have also filed Crl.M.C.No.748/2016 for quashing of cross case FIR, which is also listed before Coordinate Bench today itself.
3. Respondents No.2 to 5 are personally present in the Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. They do not dispute the statement made by learned counsel for petitioners. The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.14 of the petition. Further submit that the matter has been settled with the petitioners, thus, they do not wish to pursue this case further and have no objection if the present petition is allowed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that matter is pending for investigation with the police. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 do not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners, therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
5. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is non-compoundable, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court has power to accept the compromise. This issue has been decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case titled as Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 998 wherein held 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 w
