CRL.M.C./723/2016 of DEEPAK MISHRA @ SUMIT & ANR Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C.723/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.3095/2016

Date of Decision : May 04[th], 2016DEEPAK MISHRA @ SUMIT & ANR..... PetitionerThroughMr.Samrat Nigam, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS..... RespondentThroughMs.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SIRam Phool, PS Paschim Vihar.RespondentNo.2inpersonwithMr.Sumant De & Mr.Vivek Agarwal,Advs.

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. Deepak Mishra @ Sumit and Sh. DeepakKumar @ Dipu for quashing of FIR No.337/2011 dated 10.11.2011,underSections406/409/419/420/465/467/468/471/120BIPCregistered at Police Station Paschim Vihar on the basis of thesettlement agreement executed at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis HazariCourts, Delhi between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely,Sh. Tarjeet Singh for himself and on behalf of respondent no.3-Sh.Gursharanjit Singh on 03.11.2015.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in questionby his counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the accusedpersons herein in connivance with others including some unknownofficials of the UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar, Delhi cheated thecomplainant of their hard earned money. In the end of August 2011,the complainant received call from person and introduced himselfas the employee of Dhamlakshmi Bank and promised to get thecomplainant an overdraft account of Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs. Thereafter,Sumit, as representative of the said bank called the complainant andasked to meet him. Then, the complainant met him and gave himphotographs of documents, property papers etc. Then the complainantgave him cheque signed by his father-respondent no.3 of Rs. 1250/-.Later he came to know that Rs. 4.1 lakhs was withdrawn from theaccountofrespondentno.3.Thesaidchequeissuedby thecomplainant was misused and the date was changed and the amountwas written as Rs. 4.1 lakhs instead of Rs. 1250/-. Even the name ofthe drawee was changed from Dhanlakshmi Bank to Deepak Kumar.

Thereafter, the IO on 29.02.2012 filed the charge sheet againstthe petitioners under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Thepetitioners were arrested and released on bail on 07.03.2012 and20.03.2012 respectively. The Trial Court on joint request of the partiesreferred the matter for mediation. Thus, the parties amicably resolvedall their issues.

4.Respondent no. 2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute

between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlementagreement, it has been agreed that respondent nos.2 & 3 shallcompound the offences subject matter of FIR in question with thepetitioners for sum of Rs. 2.6 Lakhs which is to be paid equally byboth the accused as per the schedule mentioned in the terms of theagreement. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall pay Rs. 1 Lakh torespondent nos. 2 & 3 before the Referral Court on 28.11.2015 eitherin cash or by way of DD. It is also agreed that the petitioners shallinitiate appropriate legal proceedings for quashing of the FIR inquestionandalltheproceedingsemanatingtherefrombefore15.12.2015 before this Court qua them and that respondent nos. 2 & 3shall cooperate with the petitioners for the same including the issuanceof NOC/execution of affidavits whatsoever may be necessary. It isfurther agreed that the petitioners shall pay Rs. 1.6 Lakhs with equalproportion i.e. Rs. 80,000/- each to respondent nos. 2 & 3 at the timeof quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that in case thequashing petition is not allowed, in that eventuality, the respondentnos. 2 & 3 shall return Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioners in equalproportion before the Referral Court as per the directions of theReferral Court. It is also agreed that after the execution of the termsand conditions of the current settlement agreement, respondent nos. 2& 3 shall not initiate any other proceedings either civil or criminalagainst the petitioners nor shall they raise any claim in respect ofsubject matter of FIR in question qua the petitioners. Respondent no. 2affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of the affidavitsdated18.02.2016supportingthispetition.Intheirindividual

affidavits, the respondent nos.2 & 3 stated that they have no objectionif the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences havebeen resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute withpetitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR inquestion be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 hasbeen recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered intoa compromise 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.”whether 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 andand lay down the following principles by which theHigh Court would be guided in giving adequatetreatment to the settlement between the parties and

exercising 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 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 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 Court

comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or therewould 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 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 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 thatnotwithstandingthefactthattheoffencesunderSections409/465/467/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, thereshould be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, ifthe Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of thecase so warrant.

11.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view ofstatement made by respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants to beput to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to bequashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.337/2011dated10.11.2011,underSections406/409/419/420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar and theproceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

14.Application Crl.M.A. No.3095/2016 is also disposed of.

MAY 04, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE