Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Maurya vs State & Anr. on 18 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 18, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 900/2019
KULDEEP MAURYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Singh & Mr. Lokesh,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with ASI Ombir
Mr. Jayant Kaushal, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
+ CRL.M.C. 910/2019
VIPIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Kaushal, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with ASI Ombir
Mr. Sunil Singh & Mr. Lokesh,
Advocates with respondent No.2 in
person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.605/2015,
whereas in the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No.604/
2015, both under Sections 354A/323 of IPC, registered at police station
Dabri, Delhi is sought. Both the FIRs pertain to one incident. Quashing of
these FIRs is sought on the ground that misunderstanding which led to
this incident, now stands cleared between the parties in terms of Mediated
Settlement of 6th June, 2018 (Annexure P-3).
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State,
accepts notice of these two petitions and submits that Ms. Neetu Pandey
is the complainant in FIR No.605/2015 and Ms.Neeru Maurya, is the
complainant in FIR No.604/2015 and they have been duly identified to be
so by ASI Ombir, Investigating Officer of this case as well as their
counsel.
Complainants of these FIRs submit that the misunderstanding,
which led to registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared. They submit
that both the sides are neighbours and to restore harmony between the
parties, proceedings arising out of these two FIRs be brought to an end.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR / criminal complaint, which are 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 insofar
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."
In view of the fact that the incident in question, which led to
lodging of these two FIRs, took place on a trivial issue and the
misunderstanding amongst the parties now stands cleared, this Court
finds that continuance of proceedings arising out of these FIRs would be
an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, subject to deposit of consolidated costs of ₹10,000/-
by petitioners in the above captioned two petitions with the Prime
Minister's National Relief Fund within four weeks and after placing proof
of deposit of costs on record of this case within two weeks thereafter, the
proceedings arising out of FIR No.605/2015 and FIR No. 604/2015, both
registered at police station Dabri, Delhi shall stand quashed.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 18, 2019
r
