Delhi High Court
Suhana Sethi vs State & Anr. on 23 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 23, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 363/2019 & CRL.M.A. 1567/2019
SUHANA SETHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Avinash Kumar
Mr. Bishan Singh, Advocate with
respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 287/2016, under Sections 279 and 338 of
IPC 1860 registered at police station Chitranjan Park, Delhi is sought on
the basis of 'Memorandum of Understanding' of 21st January, 2019 and
on the basis of affidavit of 21st January, 2019 of respondent No.2, who is
father of injured-Vedant Singh aged about 8 years, who had suffered
grievous injuries in this accident.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the accident in
question had taken place due to bonafide error of judgment. Learned
counsel for petitioner submits that complainant/first informant of FIR in
question is real uncle/Tau of injured and due to his pre-occupation in
Hyderabad, he is unavailable and he has instructed to give a no objection
to quashing of this FIR.
Upon notice, Mr. Izhar Ahmad, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2-father of
injured is present in the Court and he has been identified to be so, by SI
Avinash Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court affirms the contents of the
Memorandum of Understanding of 21st January, 2019 and his affidavit of
21st January, 2019 and submits that the complainant party has been duly
compensated and the complainant/first informant of this FIR submits that
the proceedings arising out of this FIR 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 the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed
appropriate to bring an end to the proceedings arising of instant FIR.
Subject to petitioner depositing costs of `50,000/- with Prime Minister's
National Relief Fund within two week from today and upon placing on
record the receipt of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and upon
petitioner placing on record affidavit of complainant/first informant-
Kirpal Singh before the trial court on or before the date fixed i.e. 7th
February, 2019 as well as on record of this case, the proceedings arising
out of FIR in question be brought to an end by the trial court.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2019
v
