Delhi High Court
Harpreet Kaur & Others vs State & Another on 12 March, 2013
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% CRL.M.C. 3534/2012
+ Date of Decision: 12th March, 2013
# HARPREET KAUR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
! Through: Mr. G. Rajput, Mr. Jagjit Singh and
Ms. Neetu Chauhan, Advocates
versus
$ STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
By way of this joint petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner no. 1-complainant
and petitioner nos. 2 to 6-accused, against whom FIR no. 17/2011 was
registered on 8th February, 2011 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at
Naraina police station, seek quashing of the said FIR in view of a
compromise having been arrived at between them.
2. Facts which led to the registration of the FIR at the instance of
the petitioner no. 1-complainant, who is a widow, may be noted. She
claimed to be the owner in possession of 1/4th undivided share in
property bearing no. A-19, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi and as per her a
memorandum of family partition dated 14th July, 2008 was executed
between her and her in-laws and as per the said partition deed she
became the owner of the entire ground floor of the front block, half of
the 3rd floor of the front block and the entire 3 rd floor of the rear block
with proportionate indivisible & undivided interest in the said property
with stilt parking, drive way & the terrace of the 3 rd floor being
common. The in-laws of the complainant had allegedly evil designs to
grab her property after the death of her husband in the year 2005 and
with the help of builder mafia the accused persons defrauded her by
forging her signatures on valuable documents. That act of her in-laws
had led to the lodging of the FIR against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 by
her and other civil litigations also started.
3. However, during the investigation stage itself , the parties entered
into a compromise vide Compromise Deed dated 7th August, 2012 ,
copy whereof has been annexed with this joint petition as Annexure A-
2 and now because of that compromise this petition has been filed by
the complainant and the accused for quashing of the FIR in question.
4. In view of the compromise between the complainant-petitioner
no. 1 and accused-petitioners no. 2-6 , learned APP for the State had
submitted that even the State has no objection for the quashing of the
FIR since the matter was still at investigation stage.
5. 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 has dealt with the aspect of quashing of FIRs etc. in
respect of non-compoundable offences by the High Courts in exercise
of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure where the complainant and the accused arrive at some
compromise and the complainant does not want to pursue the
complaint any further. After noticing all the earlier judgments 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."
6. In another judgment in the case of "Shiji @Pappu & Ors. V.
Radhika, 2012 Cri.L.J 840 the Supreme Court has again reiterated
that in cases where refusal to exercise its powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. may result in abuse of process of law, High Court can quash
criminal proceedings when the disputes are settled between the
complainant and the accused.
7. Since the criminal case was registered in the present case as a
result of some disputes in respect of ownership of some joint property
between the complainant and her in-laws and which disputes now stand
settled this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal
proceedings in respect of the FIR in question would be an abuse of the
process of law and to secure the ends of justice this Court should quash
the FIR.
8. This petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No.17/2011
registered at Police Station Naraina is quashed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
MARCH 12, 2013
