Delhi High Court
Shri Afzal vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 4 December, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3959/2015
Date of Decision : December 04th, 2015
SHRI AFZAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Abid Ibrahim, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ... Respondents
Through Mr.Arun K. Sharma, APP for the
State.
Mr.Deepak Jain, Adv. with
Ms.Varnika Singh, Adv. for R-2 with
Ms.Jaya Thakuria, Manager (Legal).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the petitioner, namely, Shri Afzal for quashing of FIR
No.1222/2014 dated 25.12.2014, under Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act (Amend.), 2003 registered at Police Station Amar
Colony on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the
petitioner and respondent no.2-BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (through
its legal representative).
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the Ms. Jaya Thakurai, present in the Court, presently
working as Manager (Legal) with BSES Rajdhan Power Ltd. has been
identified as the authorized legal representative of the said Company
by her counsel.
3. Ms. Jaya Thakurai, legal representative of respondent no.2
submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably
resolved. An affidavit of Ms. Jaya Thakurai dated 03.11.2015 has
been placed on record. As per the affidavit, she declared that based on
the inspection dated 21.03.2014, Assessment Bill for Direct Theft
dated 26.03.2014 amounting to Rs.55,099/- was raised against the
petitioner. Further it has been stated that the petitioner has paid all the
dues to the respondent no.2 on 23.03.2015 vide receipt no.
040032276816 and obtained the No Dues certificate. It has also been
stated that the respondent no.2 has no objection in case the FIR in
question is quashed. Legal Representative of respondent no.2 affirms
the contents of the aforesaid compromise and the said affidavit
supporting this petition. All the disputes and differences have been
resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner
survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be
brought to an end. Statement of the Ms. Jaya Thakurai has been
recorded in this regard in which she stated that respondent no.2 has
entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the
disputes with him. She further stated that respondent no.2 has no
objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
4. In Gian Singh v. 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. 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 proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings 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 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 proceedings."
5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are as under:-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
is to be distinguished from the power which lies in
the Court to compound the offences under Section
320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves. However, this power is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between
the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
6. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there
would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal
proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of
the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and
to secure the ends of justice.
7. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured;
where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to
avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision
of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of
justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to
circumvent the express provisions of law.
8. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the
Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice
or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is
not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by Ms. Jaya Thakurai, the FIR in question warrants to
be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be
quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.1222/2014
dated 25.12.2014, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act
(Amend.), 2003 registered at Police Station Amar Colony and the
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2015
dd
