Delhi High Court
Mahender vs State & Anr. on 29 April, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.1057/2014
Date of decision: 29th April, 2014
MAHENDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashish Lal, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yogesh Verma, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of
FIR No.244/12 under Section 326 IPC registered at PS Dabri, Delhi.
2. Status report filed on behalf of the State is on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and
respondent No.2 had a love affair and due to some reasons, respondent
No.2 got married with someone else on 14.07.2011. The petitioner
tried to contact respondent No.2 only once to find out the reasons for
getting married to someone else and thereafter, the petitioner never
tried to contact her. He also submits that on 02.07.2012, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner but respondent No.2 had
mistakenly recognised the petitioner to be the person who threw acid
like liquid on her. He also submits that respondent No.2 does not want
to purse the FIR No.244/12.
The facts of the case as set out in the FIR are that respondent
No.2 Preeti lodged a complaint that on 02.07.2012 at around 8.00 p.m.,
she was alone in her house, someone knocked at the door of her room.
When she opened the door, she saw Mahender Singh (petitioner),
standing there and he threw acid like liquid on her. As she had
partially opened the door, only small amount of acid fell on her and her
eyes started burning. Further the complainant had stated that
Mahender is jealous with her family and had earlier also threatened
her. She also stated that before marriage, Mahender lived near her
house in Mohan Garden and wanted to marry her.
Learned APP has opposed the quashing on the ground that there
are serious allegations against the petitioner. He also pointed out that
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 326 IPC
has been filed.
The offence under Section 326 IPC is punishable with
punishment for imprisonment of life, or with imprisonment of other
description for term which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine. According to Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the offence
under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable.
In Gian Singh vs. 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. 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 FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the 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 a serious impact
on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the 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
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if
in its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the 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 proceeding."
On bare reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the
High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
competent enough to quash the criminal proceedings pending against
the accused in a Court, in order to prevent the abuse of process of
Court to secure the ends of justice. However, said powers should be
exercised sparingly and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not be
allowed to be used as an instrument handed over to the accused to
short-circuit the prosecution and bring about its closure without due
enquiry. If the procedural law provides for an equal efficacious remedy
to the party concerned, then naturally High Courts would be reluctant
to invoke powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed.
Crl.M.A. No.3579/2014
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
April 29, 2014/gm
