CRL.M.C./290/2014 of NITIN SINGHAL & ORS. Vs THE STATE & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 290/2014 & Crl. M.A. 917/2014

Date of Decision : February 19[th], 2016NITIN SINGHAL & ORS...... PetitionerThroughMr.P.R. Agarwal & Mr.Y.R. Sharma,Advs.

versus

THE STATE & ORS.

..... RespondentThroughMr.Rajat Katyal, APP with SI JasbirSingh, PS Preet Vihar.

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

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filedby the petitioners, namely, Nitin Singhal, Ravi Gupta, Prabodh KumarRustagi and Uma Shankar for quashing of FIR No.167/2000 dated29.04.2000, under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Preet Vihar on the basis of the settlement arrived at betweenpetitioners and the respondent no.2, namely, Neerja Sharma.

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 question

by SI Jasbir Singh.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant on the allegation that she is residingwith her parents and at about 10:45 pm on 29.04.2000, she along withher sister and mother were present at home. Ravi Gupta, UmaShankar, Nitin Singhal and Pramod Rastogi came to her home andstarted beating their door and started abusing them. They then forciblyentered into the house. The complainant tried to restrain them but theyslapped her and pushed her. The accused persons were looking for thefather of the complainant and were saying that if they find him, theywill kill him. Ravi Gupta was carrying along revolver. The accusedpersons then ran away after giving threats to the complainant and herfamily.

Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 lodged the FIR inquestion. The petitioner no.1 was arrested on 30.04.2000 and wasreleased on bail by the Ld. MM. After the completion of theinvestigation, the charge sheet was filed which is pending. Prior to theregistration of the FIR in question, the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 alongwith the father of petitioner no.4 had filed civil suit against the Shiv

Mandir Sabha, Preet Vihar, Delhi and others. In the said suit, father ofthe complainant was one of the respondents. Thereafter, number ofcivil and criminal cases had been pending between the parties. Duringthe pendency of these proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicablesettlement.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. The terms ofthe settlement are recorded in the application filed in Civil Suit no.1145/06 titled as “Bankey Bihari Lal Aggarwal & Ors. v. Shiv MandirSabha (Regd.) & Ors.” As per the settlement, it is agreed that theplaintiff in the said case shall withdraw the said suit and the criminalcomplaint as mentioned in the said application from the Courtconcerned. It has also been agreed that the defendant in the said caseshall withdraw his suit for damages as mentioned in the saidapplication in the Court concerned. It has also been agreed that Ms.Neerja Sharma, daughter of the defendant in the said suit shallwithdraw her case from the Court concerned as mentioned in theorder. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved

through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners 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 thisregard in which she stated that she has entered into compromisewith the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. Shefurther stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question isquashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex

Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in

cases 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 inthe affirmative, the High Court shall be well withinits jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in

recent 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 inthe Court to compound the offences under Section320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of theCode, 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 thoseprosecutions which involve heinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innatureandhaveaseriousimpactonsociety.Similarly, for the offences alleged to have beencommitted under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by publicservants while working in that capacity are not to bequashed merely on the basis of compromise betweenthe victim and the offender.29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercial

transactions 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 question andhas 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 ofthe considered 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;where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; toavoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provisionof Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of

justice.circumvent the express provisions of law.

Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to

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 beexercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when theCourt comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injusticeor there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power isnot 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 tranquillity 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 in

entering 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 theexercise of powers underSection 482 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings 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 452 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.167/2000dated 29.04.2000, under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Preet Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefromare quashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

14.The application Crl. M.A. 917/2014 is also disposed of.

FEBRUARY 19, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE