Delhi High Court
Puneet Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs The State Of Delhi & Anr. on 13 December, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Crl. M.C. No. 2306/2012
+ Date of Decision: 13th December, 2012
# PUNEET KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ....Petitioners
! Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja, Advocate
Versus
$ THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
Respondent no. 2-complainannt in person
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the
FIR No. 200/2000 dated 26th July, 2000 under Sections
406/419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered against them
at Police Station Welcome at the instance of the complainant-
respondent no.2, as well as their trial going on in the Court of
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the said
FIR.
2. The FIR sought to be quashed was registered at the instance
of respondent no. 2, who is the sister of petitioner no. 3 and aunt of
petitioner no. 2. She owned one residential property bearing no. E-
1/74, Sector 11, Faridabad Model Town Scheme, Faridabad,
(Haryana). The complainant alleged that petitioner nos. 2 and 3
had forged a power of attorney purporting to be her power of
attorney in favour of petitioner no.2 authorising him to sell the said
property and on the basis of that forged power of attorney dated
31st March, 1993 sold the said plot.
3. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in Court
against the three petitioners herein for their having committed
offences punishable under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471/120-
B IPC.
4. However, during the trial, the parties entered into a
compromise vide Compromise Deed dated 9th July, 2012 with the
intervention of the relatives and friends and as a consequence
thereof the petitioners filed the present petition for the quashing of
the criminal case against them. Along with the present petition
they annexed the Compromise Deed as Annexure C.
5. The respondent no. 2-complainant appeared in person in
Court on 13th July, 2012 and gave her no objection for quashing of
the criminal case against the petitioners. She also confirmed that
she had sworn an affidavit to the same effect and the same had
been filed by the petitioners along with the present petition.
6. In view of the compromise between the petitioners and
respondent no. 2-complainant, learned APP for the State had
submitted that this Court could pass any appropriate orders in the
matter.
7. A three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
recent judgment in "Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.",
2012 (9) SCALE 257 dealt with the aspect of quashing of non-
compoundable criminal proceedings by the High Courts in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and after noticing all the earlier judgments
delivered by it on the point came to the following conclusions:-
" 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can
be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed......................... the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different
footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding
would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
8. Since the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were a
consequence of family dispute between the brother and sister and
both of them having resolved their dispute amicably and as per the
terms of Compromise Deed interest of the purchaser of the
property in question has also been taken care of this Court is of the
view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court and to
secure the ends of justice this Court should quash the ongoing trial
of the petitioners in respect of the already noted FIR.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No. 210/2000
registered at Welcome Police Station as well as the trial of the
petitioners in respect of the said FIR are quashed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
DECEMBER 13, 2012
