CRL.M.C./1443/2017 of DHARMENDER SINGH Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 1443/2017

Date of Hearing & Order: May 3[rd], 2017

DHARMENDER SINGH..... PetitionerThroughMr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI..... RespondentThroughMr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP.Respondent no.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJIP.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed bythe petitioner, namely, Sh. Dharmendra Singh for quashing of FIRNo.490/2013, under Section 354/323/341 IPC registered at PoliceStation Malviya Nagar, Delhi on the basis of mediation proceedingscarried out at Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi between thepetitioner and respondent No. 2 namely, Smt. Geeta.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identifiedto be the complainant in the FIR in question.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that on 02.10.2013 thecomplainant was going to the terrace of her house, when on the

staircase, the petitioner/accused met her and held her hand andmolested her and pushed her due to which she sustained injuries.The complainant after the above incident got registered the FIR in thepresent matter.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been settled with the accused/petitioner.Respondent affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All thedisputes and differences have been resolved through mediationproceedings carried out at Mediation Centre, New Delhi. Now nodispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question may be brought to an end. Statement of therespondent has been recorded in this regard in which she stated thatshe has entered into compromise deed with the petitioner and hassettled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has noobjection 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 its

jurisdiction 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 inNarinder 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 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 thoseprosecutionswhichinvolveheinousandseriousoffences 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 parties

have 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 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question andstated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As thematter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would bean extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedingsbetween the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the consideredopinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure theends 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 Courtunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’bleApex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v.Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in thecaseofInderSinghGoswamiv.StateofUttaranchalMANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution.Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would bemanifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Courtif such power is not 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 tranquility and where it feels that quashing of

such 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 ofB.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 the offence under Section 354 is non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing theFIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the factsand circumstances of the case so warrant.

11.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view ofstatement made by the respondent, the FIR in question warrants to be

put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to bequashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.490/2013,under Section 354/323/341 IPC registered at Police Station MalviyaNagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MAY 3[rd], 2017

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE