Delhi High Court
Shri Kapil Chopra & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. 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. 3572/2012
SHRI KAPIL CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rashid Hahmi, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
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.593/2007, under Section 420/34 IPC, Police Station Paharganj and
consequential proceedings arising out of the same.
2. FIR No.593/2007 was registered on the basis of the directions issued
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis
of a Complaint made by Respondent No.2 (Geeta Chopra).
3. The sum and substance of the averments made in the Complaint is that
the Petitioner No.1 at the behest of Petitioner No.2 and 3 got a Sale Deed
in respect of portion of property No.XV/3737, measuring 100 Sq.Yds.,
Dariba Pan, Paharganj, New Delhi executed in favour of the First
Petitioner by undue influence and misconception. Several civil and
criminal cases were instituted by the parties against each other. The
Petitioner No.1 is the son and Respondent No.2 is the mother. Petitioner
No.2 is the wife of Petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law of Respondent
No.2.
4. The dispute was referred for Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Delhi
and the parties agreed to settle all the dispute with regard to property
No. XV/3737, measuring 100 Sq.Yds., Dariba Pan, Paharganj, New
Delhi. It was stated that Petitioner No.1 shall be the owner of one-third
share and Respondent No.2 shall be the owner of two-third share of the
property. The parties agreed to withdraw all their cases and moved to
Delhi High Court for quashing of the FIR.
5. It goes without saying that the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC
is a non compoundable. 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."
6. All the parties are present in person. Respondent No.2 has stated that she
has entered into a Settlement dated 17.03.2012 in the Delhi Mediation
Centre, Tis Hazari, Delhi with the Petitioners voluntarily without any
pressure, coercion or duress.
7. 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.
8. The Petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No.593/2007, under Section
420/34 of IPC, Police Station Paharganj and the proceedings arising there
from as against the Petitioners are quashed, subject to Petitioners paying a
sum of `50,000/- with the Blind Relief Association, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi within four weeks and file a receipt with the Registrar General of
this Court within four weeks.
9. Pending Applications also stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 04, 2013
vk
