Delhi High Court
Gurmeet Singh & Ors. vs The State Through Sho Ps Kirti Nagar ... on 8 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.10.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 2579/2024
GURMEET SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. Sahil
Sharma, Mr. Sathak Mann,
Mr. Devrrat Sharma and Mr. Vikram
Pratap Singh, Advocates with
Petitioners-in-person.
versus
THE STATE THROUGH SHO PS KIRTI NAGAR DELHI
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocates and
SI Dhananjay Gupta, PS: Kirti Nagar.
Ms. Grisha Sharma, Adv. for R-2 with
respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') has
been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 499/2023,
under Sections 363/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Kirti Nagar and proceedings
emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered on
complaint respondent No. 2, who alleged that his minor children had been
illegally detained by his in-laws and his wife had expired on 28.08.2022,
after suffering from a life threatening disease.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that dispute between the parties
arose over custody of children of respondent No. 2, which has been amicably
resolved. Further, children are presently stated to be in custody of respondent
No. 2. He further points out that petitioners have clean past antecedents.
4. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person, submits that since the
disputes have been amicably settled between the parties, he has no further
grievance against the petitioners and has no objection in case the FIR is
quashed.
5. Learned ASC for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
6. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases,
the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be
used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalized list
or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the
society.
7. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be
appropriately quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from
serious offences, the offences which have predominant element of civil
dispute or offences involving minor incidents, where the complainant /
victim also stands compensated for loss, if any, stand on a different footing,
so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned.
The High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there
exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is
sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the
offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise
between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and
whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and
prejudice the accused.
8. Petitioners (except petitioner No. 3) and respondent No. 2 are present
in person and have been identified by SI Dhananjay Gupta, PS: Kirti Nagar.
Presence of petitioner No. 3 is exempted. I have interacted with the parties
and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them
without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also submits that
since all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, he has
no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
9. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 intend to put quietus to the disputes
arising out of custody of children of respondent No. 2. The settlement shall
promote harmony between the parties and also the chances of conviction are
bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Further, no past
involvement of the petitioners has been brought to the notice of this Court.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by
keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but
an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0499/2023, under
Sections 363/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Kirti Nagar and proceedings
emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
OCTOBER 08, 2024/R
