Delhi High Court
Pawan Malhotra & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 14 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 14, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 134/2019 & Crl.M.As. 619-620/2019
SH. PAWAN MALHOTRA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tanzeem Husain, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Jeetendra Singh, P.S. Subhash
Place
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 501/2017, under Sections 308/324/34 of
IPC registered at police station Subhash Place, Delhi is sought on the
basis of second respondent's affidavit of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure
P-5) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to
registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that due to
inadvertence, the name of respondent No. 2 is incorrectly mentioned as
'Shyam' whereas his name is 'Sayam' and amended memo of parties has
been placed on record.
Upon notice, Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2, present in
the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he
has been identified to be so by SI Jeetendra Singh, on the basis of identity
proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved and that the
misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands
cleared between the parties. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of
aforesaid affidavit of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure P-5) supporting this
petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so,
to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are residents of the
same locality, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question 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."
8. In light of the aforesaid, I find that continuance of proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands
cleared between the parties.
9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's Relief Fund within
four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No. 501/2017, under Sections 308/324/34 of IPC registered at police
station Subhash Place, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand quashed.
10. This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2019
p'ma
