Noor Salim Rana & Ors vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 483 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 1695/2015
                                    Date of Decision : January 22nd, 2016
    NOOR SALIM RANA & ORS
                                                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through:   Mr. K.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
                                    with Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Mr. Sudhir
                                    Sukhija, Advocates


                         versus

    STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
                                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:   Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                                    Public Prosecutor for the State with
                                    Sub-Inspector Sumer Chand, Police
                                    Station Nabi Karim, Delhi
                                    Mr. H.C. Yati, Mr. D.K. Yati,
                                    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, Noor Salim Rana, Vishal Vishnoi, Mohd.

Afzal Tyagi and Manoj Sharma for quashing of FIR No.70/2009

dated 07.09.2009, under Sections 365/364A/328/344/120B/174A/34

IPC registered at Police Station Nabi Karim on the basis of the

settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2,

namely, Smt. Reshma Manoj Aggarwal.

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. In the present petition, FIR No. 70/2009 was lodged by Reshma

Manoj Aggarwal w/o Manoj Balmukund Aggarwal on 07.09.2009

with the allegation that she is residing with her family and her

husband-Manoj Balmukund Aggarwal. On 03.07.2009, Sh. Manoj

Balmukund Aggarwal went to Delhi along with advocate Ramesh

Nathu Shinde to attend a Court case. On 08.07.2009, she came to

know from her elder brother, namely, Ashwini Aggarwal that

advocate Ramesh Nathu Shinde has come back to Delhi. On

13.09.2009, she came to know from the owner of Naraina Lodge,

Delhi that her husband had not come to the said Lodge since

07.07.2009. She tried contacting her husband on both his mobile

numbers, but they were switched off and on the basis of the same, she

suspected that her husband has been kidnapped by Rana Paper Mill.

Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the accused in which it was

further alleged that in the period of absence of the husband of the

complainant a ransom call was received. The charge was framed. The

accused persons were absent and thus they were declared Proclaimed

Offenders. Accordingly, allegation of Section 174A IPC was added.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 04.01.2013, granted

anticipatory bail to the accused-Noor Salim Rana on the ground that

the FIR in question is a counterblast of the case filed against the

husband of the complainant i.e. FIR bearing No.58/2009.

Subsequently, they entered into a compromise. No amount has been

shown to have been paid as ransom amount in the present case. The

husband of the complainant i.e. Manoj Aggarwal at the instance of his

wife-complainant has filed an affidavit on record to the effect of

entering into a compromise with the petitioners.

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

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is further

submitted that during the pendency of the FIR No. 70/2009 it was

resolved between the parties that they shall co-operate with each other

to withdraw or close all the pending cases filed each other. It is

submitted that respondent no.2 wrote a letter dated 02.09.2012 to the

SHO, P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi to stop the investigation to close the

case in view of the amicable settlement of disputes between the

parties. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the settlement and

of her affidavit dated 23.03.2015. 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 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 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 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.

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 the offences under Sections 365,364A,

328,174A 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.70/2009 dated

07.09.2009, under Sections 365/364A/328/344/120B/174A/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Nabi Karim and the proceedings

emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2016 dd