Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2809 (DEL)

VIKAS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2016-07-29

P.S.TEJI

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.S. TEJI, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Vikas, Sh. Sandeep, Sh. Ponty @ Kulbir, Sh. Ashish and Sh. Sagar for quashing of FIR No. 40/2016 dated 29.01.2016, under Sections 308/341/34 IPC registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar on the basis of Settlement deed executed between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, namely, Mr. Jai Deep on 20.02.2016. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No. 2, present in the Court has been identified to be the Complainant/ First-informant of the FIR in question by SI Raj Kumar. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant is employed at a private job at the airport. On 29.01.2016, the complainant on his way to work, upon having reached some distance away from Nand Vatika, two persons, identified as Vikas and Sandeep, riding a motorcycle stopped in front of him and took out the keys from the complainant’s motorcycle. Three more boys identified as Ponty, Papple’s Son and Sagar. Accused Vikas is alleged to have hit the complainant’s hand with an iron object and it is alleged that Papple’s son hit the complainant on the nose. It is further alleged that all the boys started to beat the complainant together, due to which the complainant sustained several injuries. Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged following which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused. Later, parties arrived at an amicable settlement. 4. Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the friends and family of the parties. As per the settlement, it is agreed that respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue the proceedings emanating from the FIR in question and has also agreed not to claim any compensation regarding the said dispute. It is agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall cooperate with the petitioners for the same by signing all the necessary documents or applications as and when required by this Court. It is also agreed that the parties shall bear the legal expenses of the quashing petition jointly. It is agreed that both parties shall not raise any claim in respect of the FIR in question in the future. It is also agreed that the parties shall bear the legal expenses of the quashing petition jointly. It is agreed that both parties shall not raise any claim in respect of the FIR in question in the future. Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 29.02.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No. 2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- “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 questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.” 6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:- “29. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are 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 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 to 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 the 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 predominantly 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. 7.