W.P.(CRL)/2744/2017 of AMARJEET DABAS & ANR. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 2744/2017

AMARJEET DABAS & ANR...... Petitioners

Through: Mr C.L.Gupta with Mr.NavdeepSolanki, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC withMr.Prem Sagar and Mr.Bhagat Singh, Adv.SI Sandeep Malik, P.S. Dwarka North.Mr.Arun Dabas, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R10.11.2017

The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.406/2016 dated24.08.2016 (PS Dwarka North) instituted for the offences under Sections448/454/380 and 34 IPC.

TheavermentsmadeintheFIRindicatethatthecomplainant/respondent No.2 had been running his business of Tour andTravels from Flat No.84, Sarvodya Apartment, Pocket 8, Sector-12, Dwarka,which was taken on rent by him.On one occasion, when thecomplainant/respondent No.2 was hospitalised, the petitioners and theirassociates had opened the lock of the house and had entered in the saidpremises and locked it from inside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the flat in question was

purchased by the petitioners from one Jai Prakash Saini on 18.05.2016.After the purchase, the petitioners came in possession of the aforesaid flat.The wife of the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Savita Saini hadunauthorisedly executed rent agreement with complainant/respondentNo.2.

During the course of investigation, settlement was arrived atbetween the parties and the complainant/respondent No.2, on coming toknow that Mrs.Savita Saini could not have given the house on rent as it hadalready been sold to the petitioners, has vacated the house and has decidednot to prosecute petitioners any further. The complaint which was lodged bythe petitioners against the respondent No.2 is also likely to be withdrawnafter the quashing of the present subject FIR.

The petitioners have been identified by their counsel. The respondentno. 2 has been identified by SI Sandeep Malik.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, namely, the petitioners beingowners of the aforesaid flat and settlement having been arrived at betweenparties and the complainant/R-2 having vacated the flat in question, thisCourt is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping theinvestigation of the present case pending.

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.406/2016dated24.08.2016 (PS Dwarka North) instituted for the offences under Sections448/454/380 and 34 IPC and all the emanating proceedings therefrom arequashed.

The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

NOVEMBER 10, 2017Bisht

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J