Delhi High Court
Tirlok Chand & Anr. vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 3 July, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 3rd July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2592/2015
TIRLOK CHAND & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Ajandra Sisodia,
Adv.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for
State with ASI Tejram, PS-Nazafgarh.
Mrs. Jaspreet Aulakh, Ms. Aditi Tomar
and Mr. Deepak Jain, Advs. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.
222/2012 registered at PS-Nazafgarh for the offences punishable
under Sections 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amendment) 2003 on
18.07.2013 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom
against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays
for quashing the FIR in question on the basis of compromise arrived
at between the parties.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, on
instructions, submits that the respondent No.2 has settled all the
disputes with the petitioners and the petitioners have paid all the
dues. She further submits that respondent No.2 has no objection if
this petition is allowed.
4. On the other hand, ld. APP for the State submits that present
case was registered on the complaint of respondent no.
2/complainant, who has settled all the disputes with the petitioners
and is no more interested to pursue the case further against the
petitioners, therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no
useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus,
the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
5. Undisputedly, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973, confers inherent powers upon this Court to accept the
compromise in cases where having regard to the fact that the
disputes between the offender and the victim have been settled
although the offences are not compoundable. That power can be
exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a
conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is
destined to be an exercise in futility.
6. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10
SCC 303, the Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable
resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as
under:-
" Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise
between two warring groups, therefore, should attract
the immediate and prompt attention of a court which
should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless
such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of
the society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although the offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor.
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. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the parties have settled their disputes
amicably vide Settlement Deed dated 27.01.2015 before the
Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, and the statements
of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in my considered opinion it is a fit case
where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and
proceeding pending against the petitioners can be quashed.
8. Consequently, the FIR No. 222/2013, registered at PS-
Nazafgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 135 of Indian
Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 with emanating proceedings thereto,
if any, is hereby quashed against the petitioners.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no
order as to costs.
10. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for
the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JULY 03, 2015
jg/sb
