Delhi High Court
Hasmat Ali & Ors. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 23 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 23, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2981/2018 & CRL.M.A. 10518/2018
HASMAT ALI & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Amit Kumar
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 231/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Kalyan Puri, Delhi is sought on the basis
of mediated Settlement of 12th January, 2017 (Annexure P-2) reached
between the parties through Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the
complainant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI
Amit Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that she has
received two post dated cheques from petitioner and in lieu thereof, she
would hand over the original documents of House No. 2/136, second
floor, Trilokpuri, Delhi-110091 with vacant possession of the said house
to petitioner, subject to encashment of these post dated cheques.
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."
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, FIR No. 231/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Kalyan Puri, Delhi and the proceedings
shall stand quashed, subject to complainant handing over the original
documents and vacant possession of House No. 2/136, second floor,
Trilokpuri, Delhi-110091 to petitioner upon encashment of the cheques
in question.
Let the parties appear before the trial court on 30th August, 2019 to
ensure compliance of this order and after compliance is made, the trial
court shall close the proceedings of this case.
With above directions, this petition and the application are
accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2019
v
