CRL.M.C./3850/2015 of INDRAWATI Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3850/2015

Date of Decision : January 08[th], 2016

INDRAWATI

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.R.P.Kaushik, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR

.... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Arun K.Sharma, APP.Mr.C.S.S.Tomar, Adv. 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 filedby the petitioner, namely, Indrawati for quashing of FIR No.151/2012dated 05.06.2012, under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation New Usmanpur on the basis of report of the Delhi MediationCentre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi arrived at between the petitionerand respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Nazreen on 20.01.2014.

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 of the FIR in questionby her counsel.

3.Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thesaid report, the petitioner shall make payment of Rs.10 lacs in cashto the respondent no.2 which shall be paid in two equal installments.It has further been agreed that in case of default in making thepayment, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. It hasalso been agreed that after receiving the full payment, the respondentno.2 shall withdraw her suit bearing No. 91/12. The petitioner agreedthat as and when she will receive the original documents, they will behanded over to the respondent no.2. Respondent No.2 affirmed thecontents of the aforesaid mediation report and of her affidavit dated15.09.2015. As per the affidavit filed by respondent no.2 she hassettled all her disputes with the petitioner and has no objection if theFIR in question is quashed as she has received Rs. 10 lacs. All thedisputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedingsarising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement ofthe respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which shestated that she has entered into compromise with the petitioner and

has settled all the disputes with her. She further stated that she has noobjection if the FIR in question is quashed.

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

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

5.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

the 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,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercialtransactions or arising out of matrimonial relationshipor family disputes should be quashed when the partieshave resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

6.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 and

has 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.

7.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 ofjustice.Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised tocircumvent the express provisions of law.

8.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. Vikram

Anatrai 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.

9.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 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 not

compoundable, 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 under Section 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.

Section 420 IPC, as per Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., is an offencewhich is compoundable with the permission of the Court. In the lightof the settlement between the parties, this Court is of the view that itwould be appropriate and in the interest of justice to compound thesaid offence.

10.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.

11.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.151/2012

dated 05.06.2012, under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation New Usmanpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioner.

12.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

JANUARY 08, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE