Ravi Singhania & Ors vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6040 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.M.C. 1113/2016
                            Date of Decision: September 16th, 2016
       RAVI SINGHANIA & ORS                              ..... Petitioners
                       Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate

                           Versus

       THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
                              Prosecutor for the State with ASI
                              Virender Kumar, Police Station
                              Mayapuri, Delhi
                              Mr. G.P. Thareja, Advocate
            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. Ravi Singhania, Sh. Rajesh Singhania, Sh. Gulshan Gulati and Sh. Shiv Kumar Tanwar for quashing of CC No. 15/1 under Sections 192/467/468/471/34 IPC pending before the Court of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi on the basis of Mediation Report of SAMADHAN (Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre) in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, namely, Sh. Sushil Kumar on 16.10.2015.

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 by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the accused no. 1 and 2 allegedly wanted to forcefully acquire the shop no. WZ-405,

Nangal Raya, owned by Sh. Nitin Kumar Jain, who is the brother in- law of the younger brother of the complainant. The accused nos. 1 & 2 allegedly contacted the complainant several times asking him to persuade Sh. Nitin Kumar Jain to sell the said shop and when the complainant refused to do so they allegedly started threatening him. The accused persons allegedly fabricated the Agreement to sell and purchase dated 18.07.2005 by fabricating the signatures of the complainant and also fabricated receipts of Rs. 5 Lacs forging the signatures of the complainant on some undertaking showing the receipt acknowledgement of Rs. 30 Lacs by the complainant in lieu of the alleged sale of the shop. The said documents were allegedly shown to the complainant by the accused persons on 02.04.2006 and the complainant was also informed by them that they filed a case in the Court using the said documents.

Thereafter, the complainant filed CC No. 15/1 before the Court of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, against the petitioners. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. According to the mediation report, it is agreed that both the parties shall withdraw the cases/complaints filed by them against each other and that the parties shall cooperate in quashing of the FIR no. 213/06 and CC No. 15/1. It is agreed that the parties shall not file any case/complaint against each other and their family members before any Court of law/government authority in future with respect to the present dispute. It is agreed that

in view of the settlement through the process of mediation, the petitioner no.1 shall be at the liberty to seek the refund of the Court Fees under section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89 C.P.C., 1908 with respect to the suits mentioned in the relevant terms of the mediation report. It is agreed that the parties shall not make use of this settlement for any purpose other than those mentioned in the settlement until all the cases mentioned in the mediation report are withdrawn as agreed and proceedings are quashed as stated in the report.

Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 08.03.2016. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the complaint case 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 complaint case 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 complaint case 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 complaint case in question and 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.

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 tranquility 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 192/467/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, therefore, there should be no impediment in quashing the complaint case 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 complaint case in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and CC No. 15/1 under Sections 192/467/468/471/34 IPC pending before the Court of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 dd