CRL.M.C./3868/2015 of HIMANSHU GOSIAN Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3868/2015

Date of Decision: February 26[th], 2016

HIMANSHU GOSIAN... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Devinder Singh Khatana, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR... RespondentThrough:Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP.

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, Sh. Himanshu Gosain for quashing of FIRNo.201/2012 dated 25.07.2012, under Sections 356/379/411/34 IPCregistered at Police Station Hauz Khas on the basis of the compromisedeed arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.2,namely, Sh. Dharamveer on 05.06.2014.

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 his counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant

lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that on 25.07.2012, atabout 1:30 in the night, when the complainant was coming back fromKhanpur and going back to ISBT, one red color pulsar stopped nearhis TSR. The pillion rider got down and snatched away Rs. 450/- andkey of the TSR from the pocket of the complainant’s shirt and ranaway. In the meantime, PCR came there and they took thecomplainant in their van and the accused persons were caught. Thecomplainant identified both the boys. On personal search of theaccused-Varun Malhotra, the stolen articles were recovered.

On the complaint of the respondent no.2/complainant, the FIRin question was registered against the petitioner. The investigation ofthe case is complete and charge sheet has been filed by the IO and thetrial is pending. Later on, the parties reached to an amicablesettlement and got the matter compromised.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with theinterventionoffamily,friendsandwell-wishers.Asperthecompromise deed, it has been agreed that the petitioner shall payRs.25,000/- to respondent no.2 in the manner enunciated in the

compromise deed. It is agreed that respondent no.2 is ready towithdraw the proceedings emanating from the FIR in question afterthe receipt of the amount as full and final settlement. RespondentNo.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of hisaffidavit dated 10.09.2015 supporting this petition. As per theaffidavit filed by respondent no.2, he has settled all his disputes withthe petitioner and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutualconsent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, theproceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard inwhich he stated that he has entered into compromise with thepetitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further statedthat he 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 despite

settlement 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 SCC

466. 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,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 question andhas 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 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 ofjustice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised tocircumvent 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 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 convinced

that 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 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 356 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.201/2012dated 25.07.2012, under Sections 356/379/411/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Hauz Khas and the proceedings emanating therefromare quashed against the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

FEBRUARY 26, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE