Delhi High Court
Sh. Vikramjeet Singh vs State & Anr. on 26 March, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 993/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5066/2021
Date of decision: 26th March, 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. VIKRAMJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jitender Solanki and Mr. Vikrant,
Advocates for the petitioner along
with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Kailashi and Mr.
Sushil rattan Yadav, Advocates for
the complainant/respondent No.2.
along with the complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing FIR No.526/2020, dated
15.07.2020, registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, Delhi, for offences
under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, on the ground that the complainant and
the petitioner/accused have amicably settled the matter and no useful
purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings.
2. Shorn of details the facts leading to the petition are as follows:
a) The prosecutrix registered a complaint on 15.07.2020 in Police
Station Vikas Puri stating that on 15.07.2020, at about 4:30 PM,
after finishing work at her office she was sitting at PVR complex on
the backside of PVR slums beside an open gym with her three
colleagues.
b) It is stated that the petitioner herein came towards them and
started talking to the prosecutrix and said that he is a millionaire.
When he was rebuked and asked to go away he left, but after ten
minutes he once again came there and tried to speak with the
prosecutrix. It is stated that the prosecutrix wanted to go away but
the petitioner held her hand and twisted it behind her back.
c) It is stated that he hit the prosecutrix on her face and her
spectacles fell down. It is further stated that the petitioner hit the
prosecutrix with his bag.
d) It is stated that when the prosecutrix started making noise,
people started gathering there and the petitioner ran away. On the
basis of the complaint, FIR No.526/2020, dated 15.07.2020, was
registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, Delhi, for offences under
Sections 506 and 354 IPC.
e) The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2020 and later on
released on bail.
f) Charge-sheet has been filed.
3. As stated above this petition has been filed on the ground that the
parties have compromised. The complainant is present in the Court today.
The complainant states that she would not like to pursue with the matter.
4. In the present case it is the victim who is the ultimate sufferer. She
has been harassed by the petitioner and she is being further harassed in the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
5. It is well settled that the High Court has the power to quash
FIR/complaint on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed as
under:
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz.:
(i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding
or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between the offender
and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would
put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would
be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation
of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse
of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
6. A perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner has acted in a
very high handed manner. There are CCTV footages which show that the
petitioner has committed the offence under Section 354 and 506 IPC. There
are eye-witnesses to the incident. Since the complainant does not want to
pursue the complaint it would be futile to continue with the prosecution.
7. Looking at the facts and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is
inclined to direct the petitioner to do some social service to atone for his
sins. He is also warned not to repeat such actions in the future.
8. The petitioner is directed to do one month community service at the
de-addiction Centre run by the Society for Promotion of Youth & Masses
Centre, Plot No.321, Jain Mandir Wali Gali, Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj,
Delhi-110002, from 01.04.2021 to 30.04.2021.
9. This Court is also inclined to impose cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees
One Lakh Only) on the petitioner. The amount shall be paid to the
following institutions:
a) Sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in
the 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund'.
b) Sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in
the 'Nirmal Chhaya Foundation'.
c) Sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in
the 'Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties'.
Copy of the receipts be filed with the Registry within three weeks from
today to show compliance of the order. After completion of one month, a
certificate from the Centre be also filed to show compliance of the order. In
case of any absenteeism/default on the part of the petitioner or any
misbehavior on the part of the petitioner the same shall be conveyed
immediately by the Centre to the concerned SHO, who shall in turn inform
the learned APP for the State, for bringing the same to the notice of the
Court and for seeking recall of the orders passed today.
10. With the above directions the petition is disposed of along with the
pending application.
11. A copy of this order be transmitted to Society For Promotion of
Youth & Masses.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
MARCH 26, 2021
Rahul
