Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
SHIVAM CHAUHAN & ANR - Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 2759 of 2018 and Crl.M.A.9813-9814 of 2018
Decided on : 05-09-2018
Inherent Power - Quashing Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 482 - Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 4/181, 128/177, 5/180, 146/196 - The court discussed the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr. PC for putting an end to criminal action, taking note of rulings in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. The court emphasized that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable and that the decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also highlighted that serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition invoking inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash proceedings arising from a first information report (FIR) involving offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 4/181 and 128/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the first petitioner and the kalandara alleging offences punishable under Sections 5/180 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the second petitioner. The offences arose from a fatal accident caused by the first petitioner's rash driving of a motorcycle without a valid license and insurance, resulting in the death of a minor and injuries to others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences involved were serious and not of a non-serious or non-grave nature, and therefore, could not be described as a mere dispute between private disputants. The court declined to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal action against the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings, the gravity of the offences, and the impact on society, as well as the settlement reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision to continue with the trial in cases involving serious offences is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. It also highlighted that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable and that the decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Final Decision: The court declined to grant the relief prayed for and dismissed the petition and the applications filed therewith.
1. This petition has been presented invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) with the prayer that proceedings arising out of first information report (FIR) no.629/16 of police Station Vasant Kunj (South), involving offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 4/181 and 128/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the first petitioner and the kalandara (complaint case) alleging offences punishable under Sections 5/180 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the second petitioner be quashed, on the basis of settlement reached with the second and third respondents.
2. The petition has been resisted and strongly opposed by the respondent / State placing reliance on the ruling of a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the thrust of the arguments being that the gravity of the offences involved and their impact on the society at large be not ignored.
3. The petitioners, on the other hand, place reliance on decisions of learned single judges of this Court in Naveen Kaushik vs. State and Ors., (2012) 9 AD (Delhi) 529; Mohit Sareen vs. State, (2015) 1 JCC 358; Manjeet vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors, (2016) 1 JCC 574; Ram Karan vs. State and Ors., (2015) 3 JCC 1685; M.M. Shawl vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi and Ors., Crl. M.C. 3920/2015, decided on 27.11.2015; and Anil Kumar Nayak vs. State and Ors., WP(Crl.) No.2568/2016, decided on 22.01.2018, as also similar rulings of learned single judges of Himachal Pradesh High Court, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and High Court of Karnataka respectively in Sandeep Chodha Vs. State of H.P. (2014) Crl. LJ 4954; Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2009) 3 RCR (Crl.) 258; Sachin vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 1 Cri.CC 312; Raju @ Raj Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 1 MPWN 86; and Srimurthy K.R. vs. The State of Karnataka, Crl. Petition no.901/2013. Decided on 16.12.2014.
4. It may be mentioned here itself that the aforementioned rulings of learned single judges of this court have generally referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466.
5. The petitioner places reliance on the following observations in decision in Gian Singh (supra)
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)
6. In Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), a bench of three Hon?ble Judges of the Supreme Court reiterated the law relating to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. PC for putting an end to the criminal action, taking note, inter alia, of rulings in Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), summarising it thus :
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the gr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
