Delhi High Court
Chandra Shekhar & Ors. vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 28 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 28, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 421/2019, Crl.M.A. 1841/2019
CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. Bali, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Amit
Kumar
Respondents No. 2 to 4 in person
+ CRL.M.C. 422/2019, Crl.M.A. 1844/2019
RAM CHARAN & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. Bali, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Amit Kumar
Respondents No. 2 & 3 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.
832/2014, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of IPC, is sought on the basis
of affidavits of respondents/complainant party, whereas the above
captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No. 828/2014, under Sections
308/323/34 of IPC, both registered at police station Kalyanpuri, Delhi is
sought on the basis of affidavits of the respondents/complainants.
Since these cross FIRs arise out of one incident, therefore, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned petitions
have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
order.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondents/complainant party of FIR No. 832/2014 as
well as respondents/complainant party in FIR No. 828/2014 are present in
the Court and they have been identified to be so by SI Amit Kumar,
Investigating Officer of this case on the basis of identity proof furnished
by them.
Complainant party of both the FIRs present in the Court affirm the
contents of their affidavits supporting the petitions and submit that
incident in question took place due to misunderstanding, which now
stands cleared between the parties, who are related to each other and to
restore cordiality between the parties, the proceedings arising out of these
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."
Since the misunderstanding which led to registration of these cross
FIRs in question now stands cleared between parties, who are related to each
other, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of these FIRs would
be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, these petitions are allowed, and the FIR No.
832/2014, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of IPC, and FIR No. 828/2014,
under Sections 308/323/34 of IPC both registered at police station
Kalpyanpuri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
These petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 28, 2019
p'ma
