Amit Jain vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1300 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4821/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016
    AMIT JAIN                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through        Mr.Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.

                         versus

    THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .... Respondents
                  Through   Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
                            state.
                            Mr.Vikram Aggarwal, Adv. with 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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Amit Jain for quashing of FIR

No.62/2008 dated 11.03.2008, under Sections 196/197/419/

420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on the basis

of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari

Courts, New Delhi arrived at between petitioner and the respondent

no.2, namely, Smt. Suresh Kumari on 20.07.2015.

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 in the FIR in question

by her counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question

was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the

accused/petitioner is the son of Sh. A.K.Jain who was a tenant of the

complainant and who expired on 27.08.2006. Thus, by operation of

law, the accused along with the other co-tenant became one of the

tenants in the said property. The accused was in arrears of rent for

several years and therefore, the complainant issued him and the co-

tenant a legal notice on 02.05.2007 and also asked to hand over

peaceful possession of the premises. Although, the accused refuted all

the allegations against him in his reply and instead filed a forged and

fabricated rent receipt in respect of the premises with forged signature

of the complainant. The FIR No. 349/2007, PS Sabzi Mandi, under

Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC was lodged against the accused and the

co-tenant by the complainant. Thereafter, the building department

sealed the ground floor of the said premises. The complainant through

legal notice dated 02.05.2007 terminated the tenancy of the accused.

The accused tried to get the premises de-sealed by using a false

affidavit. Later on, the monitoring committee took notice of the same

and refused to de-seal the premises. The complainant lodged a

complaint to the monitoring committee and the MCD vide complaint

dated 17.10.2007. Though the police of the area Sabzi Mandi did not

take any action against the accused.

On 11.03.2008, the respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in question

against the petitioner. Thereafter, the police officials conducted the

investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. During

the pendency of the trial and recording of evidence, the parties were

referred to the mediation centre, where the parties reached an

amicable settlement.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

mediation report, the parties agreed that the respective accused

persons and complainants of FIR bearing no. 349/2007, 62/2008,

146/2007 and 233/2007 registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi shall

compound the offences arising out of the said FIRs with each other

without any compensation by initiating appropriate legal proceedings

for quashing of FIRs and all other consequential proceedings arising

out of the said FIRs or for disposal of the said case in accordance with

law before the Referral Court on or before 31.08.2015 and in the said

proceedings the concerned parties shall cooperate with each other. It

is agreed that the above settlement is without prejudice to the outcome

of the suit bearing no. 261/10 titled as "Suresh Kumari v. NDPL" and

also without prejudice to the appeal filed by respondent no.2 which is

pending before ATMCD. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of

the aforesaid settlement. 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 respondent No.2 has been

recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a

compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with

him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question

is quashed.

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. 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 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and

has stated that the matter has been settled out of her 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. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. 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 that the offences under Sections

196/197/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should

be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the

Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the

case so warrant.

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.62/2008 dated

11.03.2008, under Sections 196/197/419/420/468/471 IPC registered

at Police Station Subzi Mandi and the proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2016 dd