Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.1147/2016
th
Date of Decision: September 5 , 2016
ALKA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Sridharan Ram Kumar, Adv. wtih
Mr.Vijay Kaushik, Adv. with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State
SI Shri Ram, PS Hari Nagar.
Respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, Smt. Alka and Smt. Kamlesh for quashing of
FIR No.484/2011 dated 28.10.2011, under Sections 324/341/506/34
IPC registered at Police Station Hari Nagar on the basis of
Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioners and
respondent no.2, namely, Smt Kiran Bala on 25.02.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by ASI Shri Ram.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on 04.06.2011 that the accused persons
abused the complainant and started fighting with her. On 19.10.2011
at about 2 pm, when the complainant was going to her mother’s house
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 1 of 7
by Scooty, accused no.1 passed a comment on the complainant and
also blocked her way. Thereafter, accused no.1 called out her family
members. The accused persons along with others caught hold of the
complainant and started beating her. They had beaten her to the extent
that her clothes were torn. The complainant allegedly succeeded in
running away from there and directly went to the police station.
Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the complainant at the
instance of which, the FIR in question was registered against the
accused persons. During the pendency of the trial, the parties entered
into a settlement.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU,
parties have agreed to compromise all the matters pending against
each other. The parties have agreed to sign ‘No Objection Certificate’
in the form of an affidavit for quashing of the FIR in question and to
make appropriate statement before this court. The parties have further
agreed to withdraw all the cases/complaints against each other.
Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement and of her affidavit dated 27.02.2016 supporting this
petition. In the affidavit, she stated that she has no objection if the FIR
in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners
survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be
brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no. 2 has been
recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a
compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 2 of 7
them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in
question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, 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 a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are 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
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 3 of 7
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 a 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 a 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and
stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the
matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be
an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 4 of 7
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends 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 provision
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing 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 the
express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not
exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 5 of 7
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 324 IPC is a
non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in
quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied
that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants
to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be
quashed.
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 6 of 7
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.484/2011
dated 28.10.2011, under Sections 324/341/506/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Hari Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom
are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 7 of 7
+ CRL.M.C.1147/2016
th
Date of Decision: September 5 , 2016
ALKA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Sridharan Ram Kumar, Adv. wtih
Mr.Vijay Kaushik, Adv. with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State
SI Shri Ram, PS Hari Nagar.
Respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, Smt. Alka and Smt. Kamlesh for quashing of
FIR No.484/2011 dated 28.10.2011, under Sections 324/341/506/34
IPC registered at Police Station Hari Nagar on the basis of
Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioners and
respondent no.2, namely, Smt Kiran Bala on 25.02.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by ASI Shri Ram.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on 04.06.2011 that the accused persons
abused the complainant and started fighting with her. On 19.10.2011
at about 2 pm, when the complainant was going to her mother’s house
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 1 of 7
by Scooty, accused no.1 passed a comment on the complainant and
also blocked her way. Thereafter, accused no.1 called out her family
members. The accused persons along with others caught hold of the
complainant and started beating her. They had beaten her to the extent
that her clothes were torn. The complainant allegedly succeeded in
running away from there and directly went to the police station.
Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the complainant at the
instance of which, the FIR in question was registered against the
accused persons. During the pendency of the trial, the parties entered
into a settlement.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU,
parties have agreed to compromise all the matters pending against
each other. The parties have agreed to sign ‘No Objection Certificate’
in the form of an affidavit for quashing of the FIR in question and to
make appropriate statement before this court. The parties have further
agreed to withdraw all the cases/complaints against each other.
Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement and of her affidavit dated 27.02.2016 supporting this
petition. In the affidavit, she stated that she has no objection if the FIR
in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners
survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be
brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no. 2 has been
recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a
compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 2 of 7
them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in
question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, 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 a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are 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
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 3 of 7
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 a 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 a 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and
stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the
matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be
an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 4 of 7
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends 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 provision
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing 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 the
express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not
exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 5 of 7
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 324 IPC is a
non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in
quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied
that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants
to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be
quashed.
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 6 of 7
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.484/2011
dated 28.10.2011, under Sections 324/341/506/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Hari Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom
are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 1147/2016 Page 7 of 7