SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 1634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
SANJAY – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS – Respondents
CRL. M.C. No. 1315/2016
Decided On : 04-04-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Adv with petitioner.
Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for the State.
Mr. Narendra Gautam, Adv for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 with both respondents in person.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to accept a compromise in non-compoundable offenses and quash the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 304A IPC - 1973 - [ELECTRICITY] - [Section 304A of the IPC] - The court discussed the power of the High Court to accept a compromise in non-compoundable offenses, 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 or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.374/2010 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, as the parties had settled the matter amicably before the Mediation Centre.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the matter had been settled between the parties and the respondents did not wish to pursue the case further. It recognized the power of the High Court to accept a compromise in non-compoundable offenses and quash the criminal proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash the FIR and criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable offense when the parties had settled the matter amicably.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases with overwhelmingly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if the parties have resolved their disputes among themselves. It emphasized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and laid down principles for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code.

Final Decision: The court quashed FIR No.374/2010 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KAIT, J.

Crl.M.A.5614/2016 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. No.4393/2016

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.374/2010 registered at Police Station Amar Colony for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 as his son namely Master Bunty died due to electric current as the electrification work was carried out on behalf of respondent No.4/BSES in the area. Respondent No.3 is mother of deceased child. The police has filed the charge sheet and after framing of charges, matter is pending trial before learned Trial Court. Meanwhile, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have amicably settled their disputes with the petitioner before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 27.07.2015 for a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to be paid by respondent No.4/BSES to parents of deceased child.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that pursuant to the said settlement, respondent No.4 has already paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to parents of deceased child during the proceedings of CS No.78/2015 before learned Additional District Judge-06, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 27.08.2015. The balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is also being tendered today in the Court to respondent Nos.2 & 3 vide drafts No.015893 and 015895 both dated 25.02.2016 drawn on Axis Bank in favour of respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, which facts are not being disputed by respondent Nos.2 & 3.

4. Respondents No.2 and 3 are personally present in the Court through learned counsel above named and for their identification purpose they produced original EPIC bearing Nos.GMP5434501 and ARE1736305 issued by the Election Commission of India. Originals seen and returned to them. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 does not dispute the statement made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that matter has been settled between the parties. The affidavit of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is at Page Nos.52-57 of the petition. Further submits that the matter has been settled with the petitioner, thus, they do not wish to pursue this case further and have no objection if the present petition is allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4/BSES submits that matter has been settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 27.07.2015 for a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to be paid to parents of deceased child.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the charge-sheet has been filed by the police and after framing of charges, matter is pending trial before learned Trial Court. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, parents of deceased do not wish to pursue the case against the petitioner, 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.

7. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 304A 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























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top