CRL.M.C./322/2019 of AMUL GABRANI & ORS. Vs STATE & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Order: January 22, 2019

+CRL.M.C. 322/2019, CRL.M.A. 1398/2019

AMUL GABRANI & ORS.

.....PetitionersThrough:Mr.AjayDigpaul,Mr.RishiDewan,andMs.ArtiBansal,Advocates

versus

STATE & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Ms. Neelam Sharma, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for State withInspectorRam Narayan,EOW/Delhi PoliceMr. Rajiv Sachar, Advocate withAR of Respondent No. 2.Through:Ms. Neelam Sharma, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for State withInspectorRam Narayan,EOW/Delhi PoliceMr. Rajiv Sachar, Advocate withAR of Respondent No. 2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAURO R R(ORAL)

Quashing of F.I.R. No. 104/2017, under Sections 406/420/120B ofIPC, registered at Police Station EOW, Delhi is sought on the basis ofSettlement Deed of 15[th]January, 2019 (Annexure P-3).

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that Mr. Gulshan Kakkar, Authorized Representative ofrespondent No.2, is present in the Court and he has been identified to beso, by Inspector Ram Narayan on the basis of identity proof produced byhim.

Authorized Representative of Respondent No.2, present in theCourt, submits that the commercial dispute with the petitioners has beenamicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement Deed of 15[th]January, 2019(Annexure P-3) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon. AuthorizedRepresentative of respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaidSettlement Deed and of affidavit of 16[th]January, 2019 (Annexure P-7)supporting this petition and submits that now, no dispute with petitionerssurvives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question bebrought to an end qua petitioner.

Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai BhimsinhbhaiVs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters forexercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing ofFIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents onthe subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Courtto prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure theends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It onlyrecognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quasha first information report or criminal proceeding on the groundthat settlement has been arrived at between the offender and thevictim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for thepurpose of compounding an offence. While compounding anoffence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions ofSection 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The powerto quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether criminal proceeding orcomplaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends ofjustice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has wide ambitand plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends ofjustice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether complaint or first informationreport should be quashed on the ground that the offender andvictim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts andcircumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration ofprinciples can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and whiledealing with plea that the dispute has been settled, the HighCourt must have due regard to the nature and gravity of theoffence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravityoroffencessuchasmurder,rapeanddacoitycannotappropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of thevictim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking,not private in nature but have serious impact upon society. Thedecision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on theoverriding element of public interest in punishing persons forserious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may becriminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominantelement of civil dispute. They stand on distinct footing insofaras the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminalcasesinvolvingoffenceswhicharisefromcommercial,financial,mercantile,partnershiporsimilartransactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriatesituations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.16.9. In such case, the High Court may quash the criminalproceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of acriminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out inpropositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involvingthefinancialandeconomicwell-beingoftheStatehaveimplications which lie beyond the domain of mere dispute

between private disputants. The High Court would be justified indeclining to quash where the offender is involved in an activityakin to financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. Theconsequences of the act complained of upon the financial oreconomic system will weigh in the balance.”

Since the disputes which led to registration of the FIR in questionnow stands settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedingsarising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹25,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fundwithin four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt ofcosts, FIR No. 104/2017 under Sections 406/420/120B of IPC registeredat Police Station EOW, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefromshall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR)JUDGE

JANUARY 22, 2019p’ma