Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2122 (DEL)

Sh. Rahul Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

2022-11-30

AMIT MAHAJAN

body2022
ORDER CRL.M.A. 24904/2022 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2859/2022 3. The present petition is filed for quashing of FIR 0257/2018 filed under Sections 279/337/304A Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Jahangir Puri. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by one Rohtash Singh, who is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the present petition. The charge sheet has already been filed on 30.10.2018. 4. It is alleged that on the unfortunate night of 07.06.2018, Respondent No. 2 along with the deceased, Sanjeev Kumar, met with an accident. It is alleged that the accident was caused by the car driven by the petitioner. Sanjeev Kumar expired during the treatment and Respondent No. 2 sustained injuries. 5. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2. 6. It is submitted that the family of the deceased has been compensated for a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- by the National Lok Adalat in a case which was filed against the Insurance Company. The copy of the award has also been annexed with the petition as Annexure P/3. 7. It is submitted that on 17.11.2022, the matter has been settled with the intervention of the respectable members of the society between respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the petitioner. The copy of the Settlement/Agreement dated 17.11.2022 is also annexed as "Annexure P-4". 8. Parties claim to have entered into the agreement voluntarily, on their own free will and without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or duress of any nature. 9. The parties are present and have been duly identified by the IO, they state that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not have any objection if the proceedings are quashed. Inspector Bhupesh Kumar, IO in the present case also states that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 10. Offences under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable whereas offence under Section 337 of IPC is compoundable. 11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under Cr.P.C on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court has 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 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. 12. 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. 29.5. 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. 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." 13. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Supreme Court has observed 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. 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 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." 14. 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." 14. The present case relates to an offence under Section 304A of IPC where a person has died due to alleged negligence of the accused person. Thus, while deciding whether proceedings relating to such an offence can be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the accused and family of the victim, it is necessary to consider whether it is probable that the presented facts would constitute gross negligence and an element of mens rea , which is required for the purpose of conviction. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab , (2005) 6 SCC 1 , while interpreting as to what constitutes a negligent act to constitute an offence under Section 304A of IPC held that gross negligence and an element of mens rea must be shown to exist. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "48. We sum up our conclusions as under:...(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution. The word "gross" has not been used in Section 304A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be "gross". The expression "rash or negligent act" as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word "grossly"..." 16. From the perusal of FIR and the documents annexed with the present petition, it appears to be a case of accident. It is not alleged that the petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance. From the perusal of FIR and the documents annexed with the present petition, it appears to be a case of accident. It is not alleged that the petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance. Given the fact that the complainant and other family members of the deceased have already settled with the petitioner, it would be improbable to secure a conviction in the facts of the present case. The Court, thus, is of the view that the payment of compensation would serve the ends of justice. 17. It is stated that the petitioner has agreed to pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as full and final settlement, in equal proportion of Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the private respondents. Four Demand drafts for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each have been handed over to learned Counsel for the private respondents in Court today the details of the Demand Drafts are as follows: Date In the name of DD No. Amount (in Rs.) 23.11.2022 Kalpana 655028 1,50,000/- 23.11.2022 Sudama Pathak 655027 1,50,000/- 23.11.2022 Rohtash Singh 708588 1,50,000/- 23.11.2022 Lal Devi 655029 1,50,000/- 18. The Court, however, feels that the compensation given by the petitioner is not adequate. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the form of FDRs of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the name of each children and father of the deceased within a period of four weeks. 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and it is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised and the proceedings are quashed. 20. The petitioner is hereby directed to deliver the said FDRs through the concern Investigating Officer and file an affidavit to the same extent within a period of four weeks'. 21. The Registry is directed to place the matter before Court in case the compliance affidavit is not filed. 22. The FIR and all consequential proceedings are, therefore, quashed subject to the petitioner giving the compensation amount as aforesaid.