W.P.(CRL)/2755/2017 of SHARUKH KHAN Vs THE STATE & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 2755/2017

SHARUKH KHAN

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Sudhir Batra and Mr.RohitKhanna, Advs.

versus

THE STATE & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:Ms.Kamna Vohra, ASC.SI Rishi Sharma, P.S.Jamia Nagar.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R R%21.09.2017

Crl.M.A. No.15818/2017 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2755/2017

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.977/2016 dated 16.08.2016(P.S.Jamia Nagar) instituted for the offences under Sections 354/354A/506and 509 of the IPC.

The petitioner is the brother-in-law (younger brother of the husbandof the complainant). It has been alleged that the petitioner had beenmisbehaving with the complainant at the instance of the mother-in-law ofthe complainant. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the elderbrother of the petitioner was married to the complainant when the petitioner

was only child of about 6/7 years. Later, dispute arose in the family andthere are now several litigation between the members of the family. Thecomplainant has filed complaint under Section 12 of the D.V Act againsther husband and other family members including the petitioner. The fatherof the petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant, has also filed asuitforpossessionofcertainpropertyasagainsttherespondentNo.2/complainant and her husband.

During the course of investigation of the present case, settlementwas arrived at between the parties and Memorandum of Understandingalso was brought into existence. It has been agreed upon by the parties thatthey will not prosecute each other and that complainant shall assist in gettingthe subject FIR quashed.

From the averments made in the FIR also it appears that there is afamily dispute and present case is nothing but an off-shoot of such familydispute.

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to quash thesubject FIR.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303,the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable underSection 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of anycriminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justicedemands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end andpeace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only beordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab & Another (Supra):

“58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts whichhave harmful effect on the public and consist inwrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens thewell-being of the society and it is not safe to leave thecrime-doer only because he and the victim have settledthe dispute amicably or that the victim has been paidcompensation, yet certain crimes have been madecompoundable in law, with or without the permission ofthe court. In respect of serious offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravityunder IPC or offences of moral turpitude under specialstatutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or theoffences committed by public servants while working inthat capacity, the settlement between the offender andthe victim can have no legal sanction at all. However,certainoffenceswhichoverwhelminglyandpredominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out ofcivil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership orsuch like transactions or the offences arising out ofmatrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to thevictim and the offender and the victim have settled alldisputes between them amicably, irrespective of the factthat such offences have not been made compoundable,the High Court may within the framework of its inherentpower, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of suchsettlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offenderbeing convicted and by not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justiceshall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and notexhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts andno hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”[RefertoB.S.Joshi, (2003)4SCC675;NikhilMerchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008)16 SCC 1.]

Forthereasonsafore-recorded,theFIRNo.977/2016dated16.08.2016 (P.S.Jamia Nagar) instituted for the offences under Sections354/354A/506 and 509 of the IPC and all the emanating proceedingstherefrom are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2017

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J