IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Abhishek @ Love & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 5720 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Quashing of FIR - Settlement Agreement - Sections 308/34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petition seeks quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 308/34 IPC. The matter was settled between the parties for a sum of Rs.40,000, and the settlement agreement was recorded before the Mediation Centre. The Court found that the settlement agreement went beyond the scope of mediation as it attempted to quash a non-compoundable serious criminal offence through payment of money.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the settlement agreement attempted to quash a non-compoundable serious criminal offence through payment of money, which was beyond the scope of mediation. The Court imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 each on the petitioners and directed them to deposit the amount with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Employees Welfare Fund.
Issues: The issues involved the scope of mediated settlement agreements, the discretion of the Court in quashing FIRs, and the enforceability of settlement agreements in cases of non-compoundable serious criminal offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that non-compoundable serious criminal offences cannot be settled through payment of money and quashing of FIRs is purely at the discretion of the Court. The Court issued guidelines for mediators to ensure clarity in settlement agreements and to prevent the misguiding of parties regarding the quashing of FIRs.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the judgment was uploaded on the website.
JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
Factual Background
Quashing Of FIR Pursuant To Settlement: Judicial Precedents
Examining The Settlement Agreement In Light Of Settled Principles Of Law
i. Mediated Settlement Agreement In Question
ii. Scope Of Mediated Settlement Agreement: Opinion Of This Court
Settlement Of Non-Compoundable And Serious Offences Through Payment Of Money: Beyond The Scope Of Mediation 12
i. Guidelines For The Mediators
Conclusion
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 358/2017, registered at Police Station, Sultanpuri, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Brief facts of the case that the complainant has alleged that Arjun Singh who is his neighbour runs a factory in Krishan Vihar, where his brother Bacchu Singh @ Veeru is also working. It is stated that on 05.05.2017, at around 3.30 PM, Bacchu Singh @ Veeru had come outside the house of complainant and had started abusing him. When he tried to stop him from doing so, he had threatened him that he should not file complaint against him and he had thereafter started beating him.When the complainant's family members had tried to rescue him, he had called the co-accused persons and accused Abhishek @ Love had thrown him on the ground and he was also beaten with bricks by co-accused. Thereafter, they had run away from the spot. The complainant's family members had taken him to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where the police had recorded his statement. He had sustained injuries on the frontal portion of the head. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 filed a complaint with police authorities and accordingly the present FIR bearing no. 358/2017 was registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC against the petitioners.It is stated that during the pendency of the case, with the intervention of the well-wisher and family members, the matter has been amicably settled and compromised between the parties and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by them before the Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, for a sum of Rs.40,000/.
4. During the course of arguments, it was stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and Rs.30,000/- have to be paid in cash to the complainant in this case for quashing of the FIR.
QUASHING OF FIR PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT: JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
5. At the outset, this Court notes that the guidelines for quashing of the FIRs, in cases where parties have settled the disputes, have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Parbhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, a reference may be made to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (supra), wherein it was held that even a noncompoundable offence may be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant. The Apex Court observed 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 with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Sect
Non-compoundable serious criminal offences cannot be settled through payment of money, and the quashing of FIRs is at the discretion of the Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for clear and specific drafting of settlement agreements in matrimonial disputes, emphasizing the importance of clarity and specificity to....
The veracity of complainant’s allegations of coercion and duress would also have to be tested in any other appropriate proceedings. Be that as it may, once complainant has claimed that settlement agr....
Offences under Section 307 IPC are serious and heinous, lacking the possibility of being quashed based on private compromise. Hence, societal interest in prosecuting such crimes prevails.
Heinous and serious offences cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
High Court can quash non-compoundable FIRs under Section 482 when parties reach amicable settlements, preserving justice and avoiding abuse of process.
The court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC if the parties have compromised and the circumstances do not involve public interest or serious moral turpitude.
FIR under Section 307 IPC not quashable on compromise if charge-sheet evidences grievous life-endangering injuries from deadly weapons, establishing prima facie heinous offence against society.
The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if a genuine compromise exists and public interest is not adversely affected.
The voluntary nature of settlement, absence of impact on public peace, and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence justified the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.