$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + [CASE NUMBER] DINESH TALREJA & ORS Petitioners Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate with petitioner No.1. versus STATE & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. [ENTITY], APP for the [ENTITY]. SI Haroon Ahmad, PS Subhash Place. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] % [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
Crl.[CASE NUMBER] Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.
1. This is a petition under [SECTION] [ACT] seeking quashing of the FIR No.108/2013 dated 11.03.2013 under [SECTION] [ACT] registered at PS Subhash Place on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement on 26.08.2013 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. A copy of the settlement agreement between the parties has also been filed to the Court.
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that divorce by mutual consent under [SECTION] of [ACT] has been granted by the Family Court on 19.05.2014 and the statements of the parties were recorded by that court on 16.05.2014.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the terms of settlement, the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakhs has to be paid. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been handed over to the complainant/respondent No.2 favouring the minor daughter of the first petitioner as well as the complainant namely, [ENTITY] by way of a Demand Draft, bearing No.000016 dated 15.07.2014 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, in Court today. In addition, the remaining amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been handed over in cash to the complainant in court today.
4. For the removal of any doubts, counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, further undertakes to this Court that the remaining post dated cheque of Rs.2 lakhs which bears the date of 31.01.2015, favouring the daughter of the complainant, namely, [ENTITY], which was also subject matter of paragraph 6 of the joint statements of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant dated 19.05.2014 in [CASE NUMBER] passed by the Family Court, Delhi, shall be duly honoured on presentation, and that he shall ensure that adequate funds are kept available in that account for this purpose. The undertaking is accepted by this Court, and the petitioners shall remain bound by the same. Consequences of breach of the same have also been explained to them by their counsel in Court today.
5. The respondent, who is stated to be a graduate, is also present in Court. She states that her counsel is unavailable today; and she has handed over a copy of her driving license bearing No.DL-0920110154022 as proof of her identification. She approbates the settlement dated 26.08.2013 recorded before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. She further states that in keeping with the aforesaid Settlement Agreement, she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further, and that the said FIR, as well as all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed as prayed for by the petitioners.
6. Counsel for the [ENTITY] submits that keeping in view the fact that the matter has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute where the parties have amicably settled all their claims on terms recorded on 26.08.2013, as aforesaid, and since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.
7. In view of the overall circumstances, and looking to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, 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; and also Narinder Singh and Ors. v. [ENTITY] of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"31. 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] 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:
(I) Power conferred under [SECTION] of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under [SECTION] of the Code. No doubt, under [SECTION] 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.
(II) 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.
(III) 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 [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.
(IV) On the other, 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.
(V) 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.
(VI) Offences under [SECTION] [ACT] 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] [ACT] 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] [ACT] 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] [ACT]. 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.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under [SECTION] 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] 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] [ACT] 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] [ACT] 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 opinion that the disputes in question have arisen primarily out of a matrimonial relationship where the parties have resolved the entire dispute themselves; and since the complainant is now not interested in supporting the prosecution, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak;
and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a quietus.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.108/2013 dated 11.03.2013 registered under [SECTION] [ACT] at police station Subhash Place, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9. The petition stands disposed off.
10. [ENTITY].
[ENTITY] Judge JULY 24, 2014 an/dr