W.P.(CRL)/1458/2024 of DHARMENDER SINGH Vs STATE & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024 & CRL.M.A. 14225/2024

DHARMENDER SINGH

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, Adv. along petitioner in person. along petitioner in person.

versus

STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl) for the State along with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Subhash Pachar, Ms. Naghma Malik, Mr. Azaz Ahmed, Mr. Ajay Vashist, Mr. Gaurav Gupta & Mr. Kishan Maheshwari, Advs. SI Nirankar, PS Defence Colony. (Crl) for the State along with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Subhash Pachar, Ms. Naghma Malik, Mr. Azaz Ahmed, Mr. Ajay Vashist, Mr. Gaurav Gupta & Mr. Kishan Maheshwari, Advs. SI Nirankar, PS Defence Colony.

Adv. Arjun Malik for R-2 through V.C. through V.C.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R R08.05.2024

CRL.M.A. 14226/2024 (exemption from filing the certifiedcopies / fair typed and clear copies of the dim annexures and for not leaving proper margins).

1.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024 & CRL.M.A. 14225/2024

3.The present petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of FIR No.0126/2019 dated 06.07.2019 under Sections

W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024

Page 1 of 7

467/468/471/420/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station Defence Colony. The FIR was registered on complaint filed by Respondent No. 2/complainant.

4.It is alleged by Respondent No. 2 in the FIR that she and her husband had let out their premises on rent to the petitioner in February, 2017 but he stopped paying rent since 16.07.2018. Petitioner also created an NOC by forging signature of the complainant’s husband and got installed an electricity meter, which led to the filing of the present FIR.

5.The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Complainant has no grievance against the petitioner and now both are having cordial, affordable and pleasant relationship with each other and now there is no dispute or clash left between the parties.

6.It is stated that civil suit was instituted and during the pendency of the suit, as filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Court of Ld. District Judge, Saket Court being CS/DJ No. 371/2019, the parties to the Suit sat together and sorted out their disputes amicably and got their statements recorded before the Court on 19.08.2019 as per which petitioner has handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to Respondent No. 2 on 25.08.2019.

7.The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the Respondent No.2 is not been keeping well and is not in position to come to the Court. He submits that an affidavit dated 01.04.2024 of Respondent No. 2 having no objection for the quashing of the present FIR is already placed on record. He further submits that the charge sheet has not been filed in the present case.

8.Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable,

W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024

whereas offences under Sections 467/468/471of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature.

9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble

Apex Court had observed as under :-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would 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 form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under :-

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

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

Page 4 of 7

W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash first information report or criminal proceeding on the ground that settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

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

16.5. The decision as to whether complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of civil dispute. They stand on distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

(emphasis supplied)

12.Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

13.In view of the above, FIR No.126/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

W.P.(CRL) 1458/2024

14.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

15.Pending application also stands disposed of.

MAY 8, 2024 “SK”

AMIT MAHAJAN, J