Noor Mohd. & Ors vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 8130 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 2210/2015
                                   Date of Decision : October 29th, 2015
    NOOR MOHD. & ORS                                ..... Petitioners
                 Through           Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR                ..... Respondents
                   Through   Mr.Satya Narayan, APP for the State.
                             Mr.Satinder Sharma, Adv. with
                             Ms.Aasma, R-2 in person.


           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, Mr. Noor Mohd., Smt. Sabbiran, Mr. Aas

Mohd., Mrs. Soni @ Saheda, Mrs. Jubaida and Mr. Shah Alam for

quashing of FIR No.205/2012 dated 11.06.2012, under Sections

498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi on the basis of

settlement deed arrived at between the petitioners and respondent

No.2-Aasma at the Family Courts, Karkardooma, Delhi on

03.09.2014.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question

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 deed, the respondent no.2 has no grievance or grudges

against the petitioner. Further it has been stated in the deed that the

matter has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner

shall pay a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to respondent no.2 as full and final

settlement towards the past, present and future alimony and also

against all her claims. As per the deed the custody of the child

namely, Baby Muskan shall remain under the respondent no.2 till she

reaches the age of maturity and the petitioner no.1 will not file any

case for the custody of the child. The parties also agreed to file

divorce by mutual consent. The parties have agreed not to file any

case/complaint against each other. Respondent No.2 affirms the

contents of the aforesaid compromise deed and of her affidavit dated

13.05.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit the respondent

no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is

quashed. 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.

The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question

without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that

the matter has been settled out of their own free will. 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. The parties have already settled

down the matter and compensation amount has already been paid. 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 Maharshtra 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.

9. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced

that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not

affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of

such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace

and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.

In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and

energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in

entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is

compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.

Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of

Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not

compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of

securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,

section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of

quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts

and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-

compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that

notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-

compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing

the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the

facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement

made by the respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between

the parties, 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.205/2012

dated 11.06.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of

the D.P. Act registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi and the

proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 29, 2015 dd