Delhi High Court
Umesh Chitlangia vs State & Anr on 21 September, 2017
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.09.2017
+ CRL.M.C. 1809/2017 & Crl.M.A. 7399/2017 (stay)
UMESH CHITLANGIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate with
Mr.Anendra Saraswat, Advocate along with
petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State
with SI Janak Singh, PS New Friends
Colony, Delhi.
Mr.Rohmsdavin Ahlawat, Advocate with
Mr.Sunil Ahlawat, Advocate for R-2 along
with respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. Status report has been filed.
2. Respondent no.2 is present in court. She is accompanied by her
mother, father, brother and minor baby. She is being
represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by SI Janak
Singh.
3. The petitioner has approached this court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') for
quashing of the FIR bearing No. 85/2013, registered against him
on 04.04.2013 with Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi,
South-East District, Delhi, under Sections 354 (D)/506 (1) of
IPC and Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2008 on
the complaint of respondent No.2.
4. The petitioner was introduced to respondent no. 2 by her friend
Ms.Rajni. The petitioner remained in touch with the respondent
no. 2 for two years till January, 2012. Finding the petitioner not
so good, she stopped talking to him. However, the petitioner
continued to follow and stalk the respondent no. 2. The
petitioner also used to send SMS and extend threatening calls
on her mobile phone. On 18.03.2013, the petitioner approached
the respondent no. 2 in her New Friends Colony Hostel where
he threatened that he shall not let her get married and upload her
morphed photographs on the internet. On 03.04.2013, the
petitioner had also threatened her brother Nitesh Bhatia on the
Facebook.
5. It is submitted that subsequently, the parties have amicably
settled all their disputes. The respondent no. 2 submits that she
had voluntarily settled all her disputes with the petitioner
without any force and coercion. She submits that she does not
want to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may
be quashed.
6. Learned ASC through IO submits that the charge sheet has
already been filed against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner tenders his apology. He is aged about 30 years.
He might not be aware of the consequences that could follow
his conduct. He undertakes that he shall not indulge in such
behavior and shall not harass or contact or threat the respondent
no. 2 in any manner. The undertaking so furnished is accepted.
He is informed of the consequences for breach of the
undertaking.
8. The Apex Court in the judgment of Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 303, while dealing with the
scope of power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC
observed 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and 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
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. In yet another case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, it was observed by the Apex Court in para
29 as under: -
"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.
This extract is taken from Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54 :
2014 SCC OnLine SC 265 at page 483
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."
10. Further the Apex Court in Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State
of Jharkhand & Anr. (2014) 9 SCC 653 in para 4 observed as
under:-
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether
this Court can compound the offences under Sections
326 and 307 IPC which are non-compoundable?
Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4
SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2
SCC (L&S) 988] ). However, in a given case, the High
Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to
the fact that the parties have amicably settled their
disputes and the victim has no objection, even though
the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of
each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder, etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be
said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If
such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to
the society. However, when 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, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such
a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy.
That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace."
11. The dispute is between the individuals which they have settled
amicably. It does not affect public peace or tranquility. Rather,
it would bring peace and harmony and non-quashing of FIR will
unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
12. Since the parties have amicably settled all their disputes, no
fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said
FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No.
85/2013, registered on 04.04.2013 with Police Station New
Friends Colony, Delhi, South-East District, Delhi, under
Sections 354 (D)/506 (1) of IPC and Section 66A of
Information Technology Act, 2008 and proceedings arising out
of the said FIR are hereby quashed.
13. The petition and pending application are disposed of
accordingly.
14. DASTI.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
"shailendra"
