CRL.M.C./1929/2016 of MOHIT & ORS Vs THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 1929/2016

Date of Decision: August 19[th], 2016MOHIT & ORS..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.AmitavKumar, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

..... Respondent

Through:Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP.Ms.Seema Gupta, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed bythe petitioners, namely, Sh. Mohit, Sh. Surender, Smt. Lalita and Sh.Rohit @ Lucky for quashing of FIR No.917/2014 dated 18.07.2014,under Sections 323/341/328/34 IPC registered at Police Station Narelaon the basis of the Settlement Agreement executed between thepetitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2, namely, Smt. Preeti before DelhiHigh Court Mediation and Conciliation centre on 07.11.2014.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has beenidentified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in questionby her counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that on 13.07.2014 thecomplainant was beaten by the accused persons. She wrote

complaint addressed to the DCP and kept it in her bag. However, themother-in-law of the complainant read the same and therefore on16.07.2014, the accused persons gave poison to the complainant. Thecomplainant started shouting, as result of which the neighborsgathered.

Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the complainant atthe instance of which, the FIR in question was registered against theaccused persons. During the pendency of the trial, the parties enteredinto settlement.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per theSettlement Agreement, petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 haveagreed that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It isagreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay sum of Rs. 2.25 Lacs towardsfull and final settlement of all the claims arising out of their marriage.It is agreed that the above mentioned amount shall be paid in themanner enunciated in the terms of the settlement agreement. It isagreed that Petitioner no.1 shall pay sum of Rs.1.5 Lacs torespondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. Theparties have agreed that they have no other financial claim againsteach other with regard to any matter related to either marriage ordivorce. Respondent no.2 has no claim against petitioner no.1 oragainst the father, mother or any other relative of petitioner no.1 asregards any marriage gifts, jewellery, stridhan, any material object etc.It is agreed that the complaint filed by respondent no.2 which has beenrecorded as DD No. 38A, shall be withdrawn by her. It is agreed that

within two weeks of recording of the statement under the secondmotion for divorce by way of mutual consent, the petitioner no.1 shallmove an appropriate application for seeking quashing of the FIR inquestion. The parties have agreed that they shall not file any civil orcriminal case(s) against each other in future and that they have nofurther claims or demands against each other.

Respondentno.2 affirmed the contentsof the aforesaidsettlement and of her affidavit dated 27.04.2016 supporting thispetition. In the affidavit, the Respondent no.2 stated that she has noobjection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes anddifferences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now nodispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondentno.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she hasentered into compromise with the petitioners and has settled all thedisputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if theFIR in question is quashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ApexCourt has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61.In other words, the High Court must considerwhether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedingsorcontinuationofcriminalproceedingswouldtantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to anend and if the answer to the above question(s) is in theaffirmative, 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 arecent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh

(Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum upand lay down the following principles by which theHigh Court would be guided in giving adequatetreatment to the settlement between the parties andexercising its power under Section 482 of the Codewhile accepting the settlement and quashing theproceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Codeis to be distinguished from the power which lies in theCourt to compound the offences under Section 320 ofthe Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code,the High Court has inherent power to quash thecriminal proceedings even in those cases which arenot compoundable, where the parties have settled thematter between themselves. However, this power is tobe exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlementand on that basis petition for quashing the criminalproceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such caseswould 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 forman opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutionswhich involveheinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,for the offences alleged to have been committed under

special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants whileworking in that capacity are not to be quashed merelyon the basis of compromise between the victim andthe offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercialtransactions or arising out of matrimonial relationshipor family disputes should be quashed when the partieshave resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7.The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised toprevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.The Respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in questionand stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. Asthe matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, therewould be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legalproceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdictionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law andto secure the ends of justice.

8.The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provisionof law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process isabused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; wherethe process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid thecausing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C.or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice.Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the

express provisions of law.

9.It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. VikramAnatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case ofInder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercisedsparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Courtcomes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or therewould be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is notexercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10.It is well settled law that where the High Court is convincedthat the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do notaffect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing ofsuch proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peaceand would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time andenergy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction inentering into compromise.In certain cases, the main offence iscompoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are notcompoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose ofsecuring the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,

section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be bar to the exercise of power ofquashing.In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified theexerciseofpowersunderSection482Cr.P.C.toquashtheproceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special factsand circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view thatnotwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 328 IPC is anon-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment inquashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfiedthat the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view ofstatement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrantsto be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to bequashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.917/2014dated 18.07.2014, under Sections 323/341/328/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Narela and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

AUGUST 19, 2016

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE