Quashing of FIR No. 557/2017 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, registered at police station Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 9th January, 2019 (Annexure A-2) reached between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondents No.2 to 4 are present in the Court and they have
been identified to be the complainant party of this FIR case by SI Pankaj on the basis of identity proof furnished by them.
Respondents No.2 to 4, present in the Court, affirm the contents of Memorandum of Understanding of 9th January, 2019 (Annexure A-2) and their
affidavits filed in support of this petition and they submit that accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment, and so, the proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 64 1has reiterated the parameters for exercising
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-
“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 ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. 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 and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and 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. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic
well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified
in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.â€
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that continuance of proceedings arising out of this FIR would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, subject to petitioners depositing cost of Rs. 10,000/-with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within four weeks from today and
placing proof of deposit on record of this case as well as before the trial court, FIR No. 557/2017, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 185
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, registered at police station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
