CRL.M.C./2278/2016 of SANJAY GANDHI ANIMAL CARE CENTER Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2278/2016

Date of Decision: November 17[th], 2016SANJAY GANDHI ANIMAL CARE CENTER..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Aditya Singla and Mr.SatyamThareja, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR..... RespondentThroughMr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for the State.Respondent 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 petitioner, namely, Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre throughMr. Dilip Suri for quashing of FIR No.328/2013 dated 20.07.2013,under Sections 403/406 IPC registered at Police Station Alipur on thebasis of Memorandum of Understanding executed between thepetitionerandrespondentno.2namely,Sh.GendaRamon09.05.2016.

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 ASI Prem Chand.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant isin the business of livestock business and he used to supply goats andsheeps to the Indian Army. On 16.07.2011, livestock was loaded intwo trucks bearing nos. HR-37C-3837 and JK-03B-0979, to be

transported to Kashmir and Himachal. Both these two trucks werestopped by the persons namely, Amarjeet and Suman acting on behalfof NGO, People for animals. Both these persons called the police andmade complaint to the police for registering case against the ownerof the livestock as well as against the drivers. On this, the policeregistered kalandara. The said kalandara was produced before thecourt and accordingly the court imposed fine of Rs.12,900/- andRs.9,600/- and directions were issued for release of the animals to theowner. However, the animals were not released. The letter dated18.01.2012 shows that the accused was ready to release only 55 goatsand 30 sheeps. Another letter dated 23.03.2011 of the accused showsthatsomeanimalshaddied.Allegedly,theaccusedhasmisappropriated the property which was so deposited with it by thepolice.

Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint followingwhich the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. Duringthe pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between thepetitioner 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 that allthe disputes have been ended peacefully and that the parties havepromised to live peacefully and that no further disputes exist neitherbetween the parties nor the families of the parties. It is agreed thatrespondent no.2 shall co-operate with the petitioners in the saidquashing.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid

settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolvedthrough mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives andso, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to anend. Statement of the respondent no. 2 has been recorded in this regardin which he stated that he has entered into compromise with thepetitioner and has settled all the disputes with it. He further stated thathe has no objection if the FIR 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 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 the

proceedings 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 to

prevent 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 there

would 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 according to Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., theoffence under Section 406 IPC is an offence compoundable only with

the permission of the Court, therefore, there should be no impedimentin quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwisesatisfied that 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.328/2013dated 20.07.2013, under Sections 403/406 IPC registered at PoliceStation Alipur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashedagainst the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

November 17, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE