Delhi High Court
Vikash & Anr vs The State & Anr on 22 January, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4735/2015
Date of Decision : January 22nd, 2016
VIKASH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv. with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
with SI Kamlesh, PS Ambedkar
Nagar.
Ms.Pallavi Deepika, Adv. for R-
2/BSES.
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, Vikash and Ram Kumar for quashing of
FIR No.270/2012 dated 27.08.2012, under Section 379 IPC and
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 registered at Police Station
Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of mediation report of the Delhi high
Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, New Delhi arrived at
between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, BSES Rajdhani
Power Limited through its authorized representative Ms. Jaya
Thakuria, Manager Legal, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi on
02.12.2015.
2. Vide its order dated 23.11.2015, this Court had sent the matter
to the Delhi high Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre on the
request of the parties for a possible amicable settlement of all the
disputes between them. The parties were directed to appear before the
Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 24.11.2015 at
3.00 p.m. On the next date of hearing i.e. 08.12.2015, it was reported
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and a mediation
report was filed on record dated 02.12.2015. As per the mediation
report, it has been agreed between the parties that the respondent no.2
has already received a sum of Rs. 21,400/- towards enforcement case
ID No. RJ110612SA077 on account of full and final settlement of the
dispute between the parties and the respondent no.2 has also issued no
due certificate to the petitioners. It is further agreed that the
respondent no.2 has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed. Now no dispute remains between the respondent no.2 and
the petitioners and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question be brought to an end.
3. 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."
4. 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.
5. 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.
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Apparently, in the present case, the dispute is regarding
payment of electricity theft bill which ultimately led to registration of
the FIR in question regarding the theft of electricity and electricity
department i.e. the complainant is satisfied with the settlement dated
02.12.2015 on the deposit of Rs.21,400/- by the petitioners.
10. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, 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.270/2012
dated 27.08.2012, under Section 379 IPC and Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the
petitioners.
12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2016
dd
