Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
PRAVEEN BIDHURI @ PAMMI & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. – Respondents
CRL. M.C. No. 490/2016
Decided On : 22-02-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Subhash Tanwar, Advocate with Petitioners in person.
Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI M.L. Meena, P.S. Pul Prahlad Pur.
Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.2 in person.
The main legal point established is the court's power to accept compromise in non-compoundable offences and the need for amicable resolution of disputes.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 323/324/506/34 IPC - The court discussed the power of the court to accept compromise in non-compoundable offences, citing the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 998 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The court emphasized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and laid down principles for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 323/324/506/34 IPC. The parties had amicably settled their disputes, and the respondent did not wish to pursue the case further.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter deserved to be given a quietus as continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility, and quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Issues: The issue revolved around the power of the court to accept compromise in non-compoundable offences and the need for amicable resolution of disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and laid down principles for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
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. 331/2011 registered at Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/506/34 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, Naveen Kumar as a scuffle took place due to some misunderstanding. Cross FIR No.330/2011 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC was also registered with the same Police Station. It is stated that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 reside in the same village. After investigation, police has filed the charge-sheet, charges have been framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, with the intervention of the respectable members of the village, the respondents No. 2 and the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes vide Compromise Deed dated 28.07.2015 arrived at before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court alongwith his counsel named above. For his identification, he has produced on record the original identity card bearing No.SJL-0602672 issued by the Election Commission of India (original seen and returned). He submits that on the date of the incident due to some misunderstanding a scuffle took place. The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.39 of the petition. Further submits that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners, thus, to maintain peace and cordiality in the neighbourhood, he does not wish to pursue this case further and has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after 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 matter and the respondent No.2/complainant does 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 324 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 afore
