CRL.M.C./2001/2016 of AMIT KUMAR DUA & ANR Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2001/2016

Date of Decision: August 26[th], 2016..... Petitioners

AMIT KUMAR DUA & ANR

ThroughMr.G.P. Singh, Adv. with Mr.M.R.Singh, Adv. & Mohd. Adil, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.M.P. Singh, APP for the State.Mr.A.K. Nigam, Adv. withrespondent no.2 in person.

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. Amit Kumar Dua and Sh. Sumit KumarDua for quashing of FIR No.185/2005 dated 03.04.2005, underSections 380/454/34 IPC registered at Police Station Karol Bagh onthe basis of Mediation report of the Mediation Centre, Tis HazariCourts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between thepetitioners and respondent no 2 namely, Sh. Parvesh Kumar on23.04.2016.

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 his counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that from January 2000till January 2005, the accused persons worked in the shop of the

complainant/respondent no.2. On 02.04.2005, when the complainantreached his godown, he found that the lock was broken and variousauto parts were missing from there. One Sh. Harjit Singh and oneHarjinder Singh, neighbours of the complainant told him that on01.04.2005 two brothers working with the complainant earlier came tohis godown and loaded the auto spare parts in vehicle the whole day.

Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint followingwhich the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners.During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settledbetween the petitioners and the respondent no. 2.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been amicably resolved. It is agreed thatrespondent no.2 shall compound the offences in pursuance of the FIRin question with the petitioners by initiating appropriate legalproceedings either before the referral Court or by quashing of the FIRin question. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shall co-operate with thepetitioners in the said quashing. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shallmake an appropriate prayer before the Referral Court/Trial Court forreturn or release of the case property which was deposited with the IOin pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2014 and that the petitionersshall not raise any objection to the said prayer.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement and of his affidavit dated 19.05.2016 supporting thispetition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if theFIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have beenresolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners

survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question bebrought to an end. Statement of the respondent no. 2 has beenrecorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into acompromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes withthem. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in questionis 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 itsjurisdiction 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 underspecial 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 his 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 theexpress 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 not

exercised, 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 offences under Sections 380/454 IPCare non-compoundable offences, therefore, there should be noimpediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is

otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case sowarrant.

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.185/2005dated 03.04.2005, under Sections 380/454/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Karol Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

AUGUST 26, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE