Delhi High Court
Nitin Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 16 October, 2015
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2559/2014
Date of Decision: October 16th, 2015
NITIN KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tarun Chandiok, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP.
Mr.Rajat Aneja, Adv.for R-2.
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 petitioners, namely, Sh. Nitin Kumar, Sh. Narender Kumar and
Smt. Nirmala Devi for quashing of FIR No.415/2013 dated
29.07.2013, under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at
Police Station Dabri, South West Delhi on the basis of the settlement
agreement dated 09.12.2013 arrived at before the Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre, between the petitioners, the
respondent no.2 namely, Smt. Shanti Devi and the daughter of
respondent no.2 , namely, Bhagwati.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the complainant/first-informant respondent No.2,
present in the Court has been identified by her counsel.
3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as per the
settlement agreement wherein it is stated that the parties with the
assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an
amicable solution resolving the disputes and differences. Respondent
no.2 has no grievances against the petitioners. The daughter of
respondent no. 2-Bhagwati is the wife of the petitioner no.1. In the
settlement deed it has been stated that petitioner no.1 and Bhagwati
have resolved their past disagreements for a larger good. Further it is
stated that Bhagwati has proposed and undertaken to withdraw all
pending prosecutions, litigations, etc. initiated/instituted/filed not only
against the petitioner no.1 but also against all his family members.
Respondent No.2 had also volunteered to cooperate with petitioners in
getting the FIR in question quashed. The parties now have no further
claims or demands against each other and all the disputes and
differences have been amicably settled by the parties. The affidavit
dated 08.04.2015 of the respondent no.2 filed on record affirms the
contents of the present petition and of the settlement agreement. All
the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual
consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in
which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the
petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further
stated that she 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.
In the present case, the respondent no. 2 has reconciled all her
disputes with the petitioners without any pressure, coercion or
inducement. As the matter has already been compromised, there
would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal
proceedings between the parties are carried on. The parties have
already settled down the matter. 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. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants
to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be
quashed.
9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.415/2013
dated 29.07.2013, under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at
Police Station Dabri, South West Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
10. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 16, 2015
dd
