Pawan Kumar Saraswat & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1883 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5259/2015 & Crl.M.A. Nos.18980-81/2015
                                   Date of Decision : March 09th, 2016
    PAWAN KUMAR SARASWAT & ANR                       ..... Petitioner
                         Through   Mr.Anil Grover & Mr.Shivesh P.
                                   Singh, Advs.
                         versus

    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                ..... Respondent
                  Through   Mr.Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Vikram
                            Singh, PS Civil Lines.
                            Mr.Ankur Goel & Mr.Lokesh
                            Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2 with
                            respondent no.2 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 petitioners, namely, Sh. Pawan Kumar Saraswat and Sh.

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal for quashing of FIR No.118/2003 dated

16.04.2003, under Sections 387/506/34/467/468/471/120B IPC

registered at Police Station Civil Lines the basis of the mediation

report of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at

between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, namely, Ms.

Ruchi Kohli, respectively, on 30.05.2014.

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 her counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question

was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the complainant

inherited the property situated at 1933, Argara, Fountain, Delhi-6

from her late mother Smt. Madhu Rathi after her death on 30.01.2002.

The maternal grandmother of the complainant namely, Mrs. Prakash

Kohli filed a civil suit before this Court and has obtained a stay

against her. In the month of March, 2003, Sh. Pawan Kumar Sarawat,

a notorious builder approached the complainant along with his

henchman Sh. Shyam Suder Aggarwal and requested her to enter into

an agreement to sell with Sh. Ramesh Dubey. The complainant could

not sell the plot due to injunction order. Sh. Pawan Kumar got

annoyed and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. On

31.03.2003, petitioner no.1 again came to her house along with

petitioner no.2 and threatened the complainant. Since 01.04.2003, the

complainant has been receiving threatening calls from the petitioners.

On 07.04.2003, the petitioners even sent some labourers with building

material to the said property and threatened the chowkidar to open the

gate. The chowkidar informed the complainant about the same and

then she called the police who dispersed the labourers. After that, the

petitioners called up the complainant and threatened her to fabricate

the documents.

The respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in question against the

petitioners. The petitioners were arrested and then enlarged on bail.

The charge sheet has been filed by the CBT Section/EOW/ Crime

Branch against the petitioners and the trial is pending. The respondent

no.2 also filed a suit bearing No. CS (OS) No. 811 and 812 of 2004

for cancellation of three sale deeds all dated 27.10.2003. During the

pendency of the said suits, the parties arrived at an amicable

settlement and resolved all their issues.

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

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

mediation report, it is agreed that the all disputes and differences

arising out of CS(OS) No. 811/2004 & CS(OS) No.812/2004 as well

as in relation to property bearing no. 973 (old), 2199 (new), Gali

Hinga Beg, Phatak Habash Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-6 and some

portion of property bearing No. 1933(part) Arghara Fountain, Delhi-6

have been settled. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall

withdraw all her suits filed against the petitioner no.1 and that she

shall hereby not dispute his ownership in respect of the properties

purchased by him from Smt. Kamla Rathi. It is also agreed by

petitioner no.1 that he shall withdraw all his suits in respect of the

above properties filed by him against the respondent no.2 and further

agreed that he shall withdraw his objection filed in the probate

petition pending before this Court. It is also agreed that that petitioner

no.1 shall cooperate with respondent no.2 for the deletion of his name

from the said proceedings. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall

not stake any claim on the above properties purchased by the

petitioner no.1 from Smt. Kamla Rathi at any point of time and that

she shall hand over the possession of the part in the Arghara property

to the petitioner no.1. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall

cooperate in the quashing of the FIR in question before this Court. It

is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall not in the future, dispute the

factum of respondent no.2 being the adopted daughter of Late Sh.

Nand Lal Rathi and Late Sh. Madhu Rathi. It is also agreed that

petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- to respondent no.2

in lieu of the above properties purchased by him from Smt. Kamla

Rathi. It is further agreed that out of the above mentioned amount, Rs.

15,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner no.1 way of

Cheque bearing no.32071048 drawn on UBI, S.B. Sarafa Market,

Delhi to the respondent no.2 and that respondent no.2 acknowledges

the receipt of the same. It is further agreed that the petitioner no.1

shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent no.2

by way of Cheque bearing no.32071055 drawn on UBI, S.B. Sarafa

Market, Delhi. It is also agreed that after receipt of the same

respondent no.2 shall not be left with any claim in respect of the

above properties and after the receipt of the above amount, respondent

no.2 shall withdraw both her suits bearing CS No.811/2004 & CS(OS)

No.812/2004 both titled as "Ruchi Kohli Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraswat

& Ors", and all other criminal litigations filed against the petitioner

no.1. It is further agreed that respondent no.2 has already handed over

physical and vacant possession of the portion in her possession in the

part of property bearing no. 1933(part) Arghara, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi to the petitioner no.1 which fact is acknowledged by the

petitioner no.1. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall withdraw

suit bearing CS No. 242/04/10 titled as "Pawan Saraswat vs. Ruchi

Kohli" from the concerned Court. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1

shall also withdraw his civil suit bearing CS No.59/2004 titled as

"Pawan Saraswat vs. Prakash Kohli" pending in the Court of Sh. V.K.

Bansal, ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi adjourned sine die on

03.06.2013. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall withdraw his

civil suit bearing CS No.436/2004 titled as "Pawan Saraswat vs.

Roshan Zamil & Ors" pending in the concerned Court. It is also

agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw CM(M) bearing

no.1539/2010 pending before this Court. It is further agreed that the

petitioner no.1 shall be at liberty to deal with the sole tenant Sh.

Roshan Zamil in the property at Arghara who is a tenant under the

respondent no.2 and is paying rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the

respondent no.2 but has not paid any rent since January 2014. It is

further agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall be at liberty to recover

such above mentioned unpaid rent from the abovementioned tenant.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and

of her affidavit dated 08.10.2015 supporting this petition. 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 she 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 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 offences under Sections

387/467/468/471 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.

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.118/2003

dated 16.04.2003, under Sections 387/506/34/467/468/471/120B IPC

registered at Police Station Civil Lines and the proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

14. Applications Crl.M.A. Nos. 18980-81/2015 are also disposed

of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 09, 2016 dd