Delhi High Court
Rashmi Sharma & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 4 January, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th January, 2013
+ CRL. M.C. 2/2013
RASHMI SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CRL.MA.30/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Application is allowed.
CRL. M.C. 2/2013
1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of FIR
No.354/2012, under Section 420/34 IPC, Police Station Bindapur and
consequential proceedings arising out of the same.
2. FIR No.354/2012 was registered on the basis of the statement of Smt.
Jaswant Sandhu (Respondent No.2 herein) under Section 420 read with
Section 34 IPC on the allegations that Respondent No.2 had purchased a
Flat No.F-1, E-38, E Block, Arya Samaj Raod, New Delhi from Naresh
Kumar and his wife Smt. Rajni Bala (Petitioner No.3 and 4 respectively).
On 11.02.2012 when N.P.Singh (Respondent No.2's husband) reached
the earlier said Flat, he found that the goods kept therein were being
removed by Smt. Rashmi Sharma and her husband Kuldeep Kumar
Sharma (Petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively). On inquiry they revealed
that the Flat had been sold to them by Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.
3. In this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Petitioners alleged that
infact Naresh Kumar (Petitioner No.3) was the exclusive owner of E-38,
Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He got the property
reconstructed through a builder Jai Gopal Sachar. Said Naresh Kumar
agreed to give two flats to the builder or his nominated person and it was
at the instance of the builder that the confusion about the sale of flat
arose.
4. The parties have entered into a Compromise dated 19.12.2012 whereby a
sum of `11 lacs has been paid to Respondent No.2 by Petitioner Naresh
Kumar in full and final settlement of the claim with regard to the sale of
the flat on the basis of the Power of Attorney.
5. Although, the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a
compoundable offence, the learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that
the FIR was registered only in the month of November 2012. The case is
at the initial stage of the investigation and in view of the settlement
between the parties, it would be an exercise in futility to proceed with the
investigation of the case.
6. In the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257,
the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of
quashing of FIR in non compoundable offences. Para 57 of the report is
extracted hereunder:-
"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. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly
civil flavour 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."
7. All the parties are present in person. Respondent No.2 who is also
present in person along with her husband Mr. N.P. Singh has informed
the Court that she has entered into a settlement voluntarily without any
pressure, coercion or duress.
8. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, further
proceedings in FIR No.354/2012 would be an exercise in futility.
9. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, in my
view, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal
proceedings against the Petitioners. Rather the same would simply cause
harassment to the Petitioners.
10. The Petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No.354/2012, under Section
420/34 of IPC, Police Station Bindapur and the proceedings arising there
from as against the Petitioners are quashed, subject to Petitioners paying a
sum of `25,000/- with the "Army Central Welfare Fund", at Director,
Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate,
Adjutant General's Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army),
New Delhi within four weeks and file a receipt with the Registrar General
of this Court within four weeks.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 04, 2013
vk
