Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.@mdashThis petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 602/2012 registered at police station
Narela under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC on 01.11.2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice. The second respondent / complainant Vishal
Sharma is present in person. The petitioners as well as the complainant are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Amit in Court
today.
3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant pertaining to certain negotiations, which, according to the
complainant, resulted in agreements for the purchase of two plots between the parties. The matter is at the stage of preliminary investigation. The
matter was referred by the court below to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Court, Delhi whilst a Bail Application No. 4644 moved by
the first petitioner was being considered, and ultimately, on 27.06.2014, the parties arrived at a settlement before the said Mediation Centre. In
terms of the settlement, the complainant was to be paid a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in full and final settlement. Out of this amount, Rs. 10 lakhs are
stated to have already been received by the complainant on 23.10.2013, and the remaining amount of Rs. 15 lakhs has been over to the
complainant in Court today by way of a Demand Draft bearing No. 780308, dated 17.07.2014, drawn on Union Bank of India.
4. The complainant, who is present in person, approbates the aforesaid settlement dated 26.06.2014 and undertakes to be bound by the same. He
further states that with the receipt of this amount in the Court today, he has no further grievance against the petitioners, and further states that he is
not interested in pursuing the matter any further; and that the investigation in the matter be closed.
5. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the parties have amicably settled the case before the
Mediation Centre on 27.06.2014 on terms whilst the matter is still under investigation, no useful purpose will be served in pursing the matter any
further, specially where the complainant is no longer interested in the matter.
6. Under the circumstances, and looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , which has
referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non- compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement
agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing 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 transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,
where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact
that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
And also in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
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 Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings
even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have
been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire
disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there
is a mention of Section 307 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc.
Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High
Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it
can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the
fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases
where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may
be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is
still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the
evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code,
as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the
matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.
I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserved to be a given a quietus where the parties have amicably settled their disputes, and the
complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter under investigation.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 602/2012 registered at police station Narela under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, and
all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No. 10789/2014, is disposed off.
