Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4821/2015
th
Date of Decision : February 19 , 2016
AMIT JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .... Respondents
Through Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
state.
Mr.Vikram Aggarwal, Adv. with R-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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Amit Jain for quashing of FIR
No.62/2008 dated 11.03.2008, under Sections 196/197/419/
420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on the basis
of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts, New Delhi arrived at between petitioner and the respondent
no.2, namely, Smt. Suresh Kumari on 20.07.2015.
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 in the FIR in question
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 1 of 9
by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the
accused/petitioner is the son of Sh. A.K.Jain who was a tenant of the
complainant and who expired on 27.08.2006. Thus, by operation of
law, the accused along with the other co-tenant became one of the
tenants in the said property. The accused was in arrears of rent for
several years and therefore, the complainant issued him and the co-
tenant a legal notice on 02.05.2007 and also asked to hand over
peaceful possession of the premises. Although, the accused refuted all
the allegations against him in his reply and instead filed a forged and
fabricated rent receipt in respect of the premises with forged signature
of the complainant. The FIR No. 349/2007, PS Sabzi Mandi, under
Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC was lodged against the accused and the
co-tenant by the complainant. Thereafter, the building department
sealed the ground floor of the said premises. The complainant through
legal notice dated 02.05.2007 terminated the tenancy of the accused.
The accused tried to get the premises de-sealed by using a false
affidavit. Later on, the monitoring committee took notice of the same
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 2 of 9
and refused to de-seal the premises. The complainant lodged a
complaint to the monitoring committee and the MCD vide complaint
dated 17.10.2007. Though the police of the area Sabzi Mandi did not
take any action against the accused.
On 11.03.2008, the respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in question
against the petitioner. Thereafter, the police officials conducted the
investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. During
the pendency of the trial and recording of evidence, the parties were
referred to the mediation centre, where the parties reached an
amicable settlement.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
mediation report, the parties agreed that the respective accused
persons and complainants of FIR bearing no. 349/2007, 62/2008,
146/2007 and 233/2007 registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi shall
compound the offences arising out of the said FIRs with each other
without any compensation by initiating appropriate legal proceedings
for quashing of FIRs and all other consequential proceedings arising
out of the said FIRs or for disposal of the said case in accordance with
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 3 of 9
law before the Referral Court on or before 31.08.2015 and in the said
proceedings the concerned parties shall cooperate with each other. It
is agreed that the above settlement is without prejudice to the outcome
of the suit bearing no. 261/10 titled as “Suresh Kumari v. NDPL” and
also without prejudice to the appeal filed by respondent no.2 which is
pending before ATMCD. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of
the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner
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 petitioner and has settled all the disputes with
him. 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
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 4 of 9
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
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.
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 5 of 9
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
has 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 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.
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 6 of 9
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
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 7 of 9
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
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-
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 8 of 9
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that the offences under Sections
196/197/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should
be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, 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.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.62/2008 dated
11.03.2008, under Sections 196/197/419/420/468/471 IPC registered
at Police Station Subzi Mandi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 9 of 9
+ CRL.M.C. 4821/2015
th
Date of Decision : February 19 , 2016
AMIT JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .... Respondents
Through Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
state.
Mr.Vikram Aggarwal, Adv. with R-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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Amit Jain for quashing of FIR
No.62/2008 dated 11.03.2008, under Sections 196/197/419/
420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on the basis
of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts, New Delhi arrived at between petitioner and the respondent
no.2, namely, Smt. Suresh Kumari on 20.07.2015.
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 in the FIR in question
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 1 of 9
by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the
accused/petitioner is the son of Sh. A.K.Jain who was a tenant of the
complainant and who expired on 27.08.2006. Thus, by operation of
law, the accused along with the other co-tenant became one of the
tenants in the said property. The accused was in arrears of rent for
several years and therefore, the complainant issued him and the co-
tenant a legal notice on 02.05.2007 and also asked to hand over
peaceful possession of the premises. Although, the accused refuted all
the allegations against him in his reply and instead filed a forged and
fabricated rent receipt in respect of the premises with forged signature
of the complainant. The FIR No. 349/2007, PS Sabzi Mandi, under
Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC was lodged against the accused and the
co-tenant by the complainant. Thereafter, the building department
sealed the ground floor of the said premises. The complainant through
legal notice dated 02.05.2007 terminated the tenancy of the accused.
The accused tried to get the premises de-sealed by using a false
affidavit. Later on, the monitoring committee took notice of the same
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 2 of 9
and refused to de-seal the premises. The complainant lodged a
complaint to the monitoring committee and the MCD vide complaint
dated 17.10.2007. Though the police of the area Sabzi Mandi did not
take any action against the accused.
On 11.03.2008, the respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in question
against the petitioner. Thereafter, the police officials conducted the
investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. During
the pendency of the trial and recording of evidence, the parties were
referred to the mediation centre, where the parties reached an
amicable settlement.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
mediation report, the parties agreed that the respective accused
persons and complainants of FIR bearing no. 349/2007, 62/2008,
146/2007 and 233/2007 registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi shall
compound the offences arising out of the said FIRs with each other
without any compensation by initiating appropriate legal proceedings
for quashing of FIRs and all other consequential proceedings arising
out of the said FIRs or for disposal of the said case in accordance with
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 3 of 9
law before the Referral Court on or before 31.08.2015 and in the said
proceedings the concerned parties shall cooperate with each other. It
is agreed that the above settlement is without prejudice to the outcome
of the suit bearing no. 261/10 titled as “Suresh Kumari v. NDPL” and
also without prejudice to the appeal filed by respondent no.2 which is
pending before ATMCD. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of
the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner
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 petitioner and has settled all the disputes with
him. 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
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 4 of 9
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
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.
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 5 of 9
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
has 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 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.
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 6 of 9
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
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 7 of 9
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
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-
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 8 of 9
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact that the offences under Sections
196/197/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should
be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, 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.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.62/2008 dated
11.03.2008, under Sections 196/197/419/420/468/471 IPC registered
at Police Station Subzi Mandi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 4821/2015 Page 9 of 9