The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the High Court to exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sparingly and with caution, and to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the distinction between heinous and serious offences and those with a predominantly civil character when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings.

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A.No.2650/2016 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. No.642/2016

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 511/2015 registered at Police Station Dwarka South for the offences punishable under Sections 288/304A/337 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 due to incident dated 03.07.2015 at the construction site whereat three persons namely Santosh Yadav, Jitender Yadav and Gulzar died as respondent No.5–Ali Hussain received minor injuries. The police has filed the charge sheet, however, charges are yet to be framed by learned Trial Court. Meanwhile, the respondents No.2 to 5 entered into an memorandum of understanding dated 27.07.2015 whereby petitioners had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.6,66,000/- each to the legal heirs of aforesaid three deceased persons and compensation to respondent No.5, who suffered injuries.

3. Thus, respondent No.2- father of deceased Santosh Yadav received total amount of Rs.25,64,749/-; respondent No.3- father of deceased Jitender Yadav received an amount of Rs.16,59,375/-; respondent No.4 – father of deceased Gulzar received an amount of Rs.15,69,496/-. Respondent No.5/injured has been provided job in the office of petitioners. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are no more interested to pursue their case against petitioners any more.

4. Respondents No.2 to 5 are personally present in the Court through their learned counsel and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, under their instructions submits that matter has been settled between the parties, the total agreed amount has been received by the respondents and they have no complaints whatsoever against petitioners and have also no objection, if the present petition is allowed. The affidavits and identity documents of respondent Nos.2 to 5 are at Page Nos.18 to 32A of the petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that though chargesheet has been filed by the police, however, case is at the initial stage as summon is yet to be served upon the petitioners by learned Trial Court. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and the respondent Nos.2 to 4, LRs of deceased as well as respondent No.5/injured 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.

6. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 288/304A/337 of the IPC are 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:

“61....... the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and c