Mohan vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1543 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4545/2015
                                  Date of Decision: February 26th, 2016
    MOHAN                                                   ... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate

                         versus

    THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ... Respondent
                  Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                            Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                            Inspector Devender, Police Station
                            Kanjhawala, Delhi
                            Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate for
                            respondent No. 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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Mohan for quashing of FIR No.71/2014

dated 26.01.2014, under Sections 420/448 IPC registered at Police

Station Kanjhawala on the basis of the settlement arrived at between

the petitioner and the respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Devi Lal.

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 his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant

lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that the complainant was

allotted a plot and he carried out some construction on the said plot.

After some time, the complainant went to his native place. When the

complainant came back, he found that one Mohan had illegally

trespassed in the said plot.

Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint on the basis of

which the FIR in question was lodged. During the investigation, the

petitioner/accused alleged that he had purchased the said plot from

one Sanju. The IO found out that the papers of the property were

forged and fabricated by Sanju, thus, the petitioner has cheated the

respondent no.2/complainant. The respondent no.2 had also filed a

civil suit for possession and recovery of damages in respect of the said

property which at present is pending. However, after the intervention

of respectable persons of the same locality, the petitioner and the

respondent no.2 entered into a compromise.

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

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the

intervention of respectable persons of the society. As per the

settlement, it is agreed between the parties that they shall jointly

dispose-off/sell the property in dispute to the bonafide purchaser and

the total cost so received shall be distributed in equal proportions

amongst the parties. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall

withdraw the civil suit as stated herein above as well as the FIR in

question. It is further agreed that neither party shall initiate any civil

or criminal or any legal proceedings against each other or either of

their family members in future. It is agreed that respondent no.2 has

no objection in quashing of the FIR in question. Respondent No.2

affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit

dated 28.10.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the

respondent no.2 has stated that he 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 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 he stated that he has entered into a

compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with

him. He further stated that he 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 his 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 as per Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C., the

offence under Section 420 IPC is an offence compoundable only with

the permission of the Court therefore, 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.71/2014 dated

26.01.2014, under Sections 420/448 IPC registered at Police Station

Kanjhawala and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed

against the petitioner.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2016 dd