Delhi High Court
Roshan Lal Kalra & Anr vs State & Anr on 6 July, 2018
$~23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 6th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 2540/2016
ROSHAN LAL KALRA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Patiyal, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP with SI
Naveen, P.S. Sabzi Mandi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the complaint of second respondent, the Station House
Officer (SHO) of Police Station Sabzi Mandi has registered a First
Information Report (FIR) no. 89/2016 on 17.02.2016 for investigation
into offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It appears the second respondent is the
owner of property described as shop (internal no.6) in property no.
2086, Gali no. 38, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, wherein the
petitioners along with one another were statedly claiming to be
tenants. The second respondent had earlier instituted certain
proceedings in the court of Additional Rent Controller vis-à-vis the
tenancy in the said shop. The petitioners had used certain documents
purporting to be rent receipts issued by Laxmi Raj Sharma, late father
of second respondent, in respect of the said shop in favour of M/s
Echkey Plastics Industries. These documents, as per the allegations in
the FIR, were forged and fabricated, the design of the petitioners being
to commit the offence of cheating using such fabricated documents.
2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer that the
proceedings in the criminal case arising out of the afore-mentioned
FIR be quashed, primarily on the ground that the dispute between the
parties as to the tenancy has since been settled and the vacant
possession of the premises in question already handed over to the
second respondent by the petitioners.
3. In a ruling of a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme
Court reported as Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC
641, the law on the subject has been reiterated as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the
following propositions :
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does
not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court
to quash a First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the provisions
of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if
the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of
the process of any court.
16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.
16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been
settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of the victim
have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in
such cases is founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute.
16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise
between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding
would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance".
4. While it does appear that the allegations concerning the
offences in the nature of cheating in the case at hand relate to a dispute
between two parties, it cannot be ignored that the criminal case also
involves such grave offences as forgery and fabrication of documents
in the nature of valuable security, which would attract an offence
punishable under Section 467 IPC. At the hearing it was fairly
conceded that there is evidence available confirming the forgery of the
rent receipts which was presented in the Rent Control proceedings.
5. In this nature and gravity of the matter, the overriding element
of public interest inhibits this Court from exercising its extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the
criminal prosecution.
6. The prayer for quashing of the criminal case as afore-mentioned
is, thus, declined.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY6, 2018
srb
