Himayun & Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1725 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5138/2015
                     Date of Decision : March 03rd, 2016
    HIMAYUN & ORS                            ..... Petitioners
                Through    Mr.Firoz Alam, Adv.

                         versus

    THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS              ..... Respondents
                  Through   Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
                            with SI Shiv Kumar, PS Jamia Nagar.
                            Mr.Matloob Alam, Adv. for-2 to 7
                            with R-2, 3, 6 & 7 in person.
         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. Himayun, Sh. Farhan, Sh. Arbaz Khan,

Sh. Rizwan and Sh. Shahbaz @ Raju Piechi for quashing of FIR

No.160/2013 dated 09.04.2013, under Sections 323/324/341/506/34

IPC registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar on the basis of the

compromise deed arrived at between the petitioners and respondent

nos.2 to 7, namely, Sh. Mohd. Asim, Sh. Mohd. Waseem, Sh. Mohd.

Tahir, Sh. Mohd. Danish, Sh. Mohd. Yunus and Sh. Mohd. Takki,

respectively, on 20.11.2015.

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/first-informant and respondent nos.3,

6 & 7 have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by

SI Shiv Kumar.

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

lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that on 08.04.2013, a

quarrel took place on the issue of children playing with one Himayun

who runs a shop of chowmein and tea. Immediately after that, at 8

pm, the petitioners were carrying sharp weapons in their hands and

started abusing Danidh and his father Tahir. The father of the

complainant asked them not to quarrel here and go some place else.

All the accused persons/petitioners then attacked the complainant and

his father and brother with those weapons. Taki, Tahir and Danish

came to rescue them, but they were also beaten up.

Later on, the petitioners and the complainant along with other

respondents arrived at an amicable settlement and resolved their

issues.

4. Respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 & 7 present in the Court, submitted that

the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the

intervention of common friends and relatives and residents of same

localities. As per the compromise deed, it is agreed between the

parties that all disputes differences/grievances whatsoever pertaining

to FIR no. 158/2013 under sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, Police

Station Jamia Nagar and the FIR in question have been resolved. It is

also agreed that they shall compound/get quashed both the said FIRs

with their free will and consent. It is also agreed that both the parties

shall move appropriate applications, petitions, to file affidavits and

appear and make statements before the competent courts of law for

quashing/compounding the above mentioned two FIRs and shall

cooperate with each other for the same. Respondent Nos.2 to 7

affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their

individual affidavits dated 11.12.2015 supporting this petition. In the

affidavits, the respondent nos.2 to 7 have stated that they have 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. Statements of the

respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 have been recorded in this regard in

which they have stated that they have entered into a compromise with

the petitioners and have settled all the disputes with them. They

further stated that they have 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 nos. 2 to 7 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in

question and have stated that the matter has been settled out of their

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 324 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

statements made by the respondent nos.2, 3, 6 and 7, 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.160/2013

dated 09.04.2013, under Sections 323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered

at Police Station Jamia Nagar and the proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 03, 2016 dd