Nitin Singhal & Ors. vs The State & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1312 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 290/2014 & Crl. M.A. 917/2014
                                 Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016
     NITIN SINGHAL & ORS.                                 ..... Petitioner
                        Through        Mr.P.R. Agarwal & Mr.Y.R. Sharma,
                                       Advs.

                        versus

    THE STATE & ORS.                                     ..... Respondent
                  Through              Mr.Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Jasbir
                                       Singh, PS Preet Vihar.


           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, Nitin Singhal, Ravi Gupta, Prabodh Kumar

Rustagi and Uma Shankar for quashing of FIR No.167/2000 dated

29.04.2000, under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered at Police

Station Preet Vihar on the basis of the settlement arrived at between

petitioners and the respondent no.2, namely, Neerja Sharma.

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 SI Jasbir Singh.

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

was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that she is residing

with her parents and at about 10:45 pm on 29.04.2000, she along with

her sister and mother were present at home. Ravi Gupta, Uma

Shankar, Nitin Singhal and Pramod Rastogi came to her home and

started beating their door and started abusing them. They then forcibly

entered into the house. The complainant tried to restrain them but they

slapped her and pushed her. The accused persons were looking for the

father of the complainant and were saying that if they find him, they

will kill him. Ravi Gupta was carrying along a revolver. The accused

persons then ran away after giving threats to the complainant and her

family.

Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in

question. The petitioner no.1 was arrested on 30.04.2000 and was

released on bail by the Ld. MM. After the completion of the

investigation, the charge sheet was filed which is pending. Prior to the

registration of the FIR in question, the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 along

with the father of petitioner no.4 had filed a civil suit against the Shiv

Mandir Sabha, Preet Vihar, Delhi and others. In the said suit, father of

the complainant was one of the respondents. Thereafter, a number of

civil and criminal cases had been pending between the parties. During

the pendency of these proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable

settlement.

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

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. The terms of

the settlement are recorded in the application filed in Civil Suit no.

1145/06 titled as "Bankey Bihari Lal Aggarwal & Ors. v. Shiv Mandir

Sabha (Regd.) & Ors." As per the settlement, it is agreed that the

plaintiff in the said case shall withdraw the said suit and the criminal

complaint as mentioned in the said application from the Court

concerned. It has also been agreed that the defendant in the said case

shall withdraw his suit for damages as mentioned in the said

application in the Court concerned. It has also been agreed that Ms.

Neerja Sharma, daughter of the defendant in the said suit shall

withdraw her case from the Court concerned as mentioned in the

order. 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 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.

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 offence under Section 452 IPC is a

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.

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.167/2000

dated 29.04.2000, under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Preet Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom

are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

14. The application Crl. M.A. 917/2014 is also disposed of.

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