Delhi High Court
Gurbachan Singh Saluja & Ors vs The State & Anr on 8 January, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4353/2015
Date of Decision: January 08th, 2016
GURBACHAN SINGH SALUJA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Verma, Ms. Priyanka
Sinha, Ms. Sukanya Basu, Ms. Aditi
Monan, Advocates
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Ashutosh, Police Station
EOW.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Preet Singh,
Advocates 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 petitioners, namely, Gurbachan Singh Saluja, Mrs. Ravinder
Saluja and Avijeet Saluja @ Sunny Saluja for quashing of FIR
No.172/2010 dated 08.12.2010, under Sections 420/468/471/120B
IPC registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing on the basis
of the settlement agreement, Delhi high Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre arrived at between the petitioners and respondent
no.2, namely, Mr. Rakesh Ahluwalia on 11.05.2015.
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 of the FIR in question by his counsel.
3. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
said agreement, the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.29 lacs
in addition to the sum of Rs.1.4 crores lying in the form of FDR in the
name of the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi with
interest. Both the parties undertake to file a joint petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR in question. It is also
agreed that the Suit CS(OS) 1482 of 2013 be decreed in terms of the
present settlement agreement. It is also agreed that the petitioners
shall have no objection to the refund of the Court Fees to the
respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 also undertakes to fully
cooperate with the petitioners in CS (OS) No.1441/2013 and to take
all appropriate steps for withdrawing the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC filed by him. The respondent no.2 also undertakes to
cooperate with the petitioners in Criminal complaint case under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The respondent no.2 agrees to relinquish all
his right/title/interest against Plot no.62, Pocket 1, Block A, Sector 29,
Rohini, Delhi. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
compromise. 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 he stated that he has entered into a compromise with
the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further
stated that he 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 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.
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 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.
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 offences under Sections 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.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.172/2010
dated 08.12.2010, under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC registered at
Police Station Economic Offences Wing and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2016
dd
