* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1572/2016 KAMAL VERMA & ANR. Date of Decision:October 18th, 2016 ........ Petitioner
s Through: Mr.Akhilesh Arora and Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP. Mr.Dinesh Kumar Gaur and Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by 1. the petitioners, namely, Sh. Kamal Verma and Sh. Satya Prakash for quashing of FIR No.1160/2015 dated 23.09.2015 under Sections 420/467/468/4
IPC registered at Police Station Burari on the basis of Compromise Deed executed between the petitioners and respondent No.2, namely, Sh. Naresh Kumar on 15.04.2016.
2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant by SI Ashish Dahima.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 24.11.2014, the complainant purchased a flat bearing No.1
Upper Ground Floor (with two wheeler parking), Gali no.8, B-block, Kamal Vihar, Kamaal Pur, Burari, admeasuring about 68 square yards, for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs. from petitioner no.1. The accused no.2 had allegedly convinced Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 1 of 7 and assured the complainant that the said property was free from all encumbrances and was registered in the name of the accused no.1. The complainant was shocked to learn that the papers of the property were forged by the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 10.50 Lacs in the manner enunciated in the terms of the deed. It is that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate in getting the FIR in question quashed against the petitioners and that in case the FIR in question is not quashed the respondent no.2 shall not be entitled for encashment of the cheque given by the petitioner no.1 and that petitioner no.1 shall be at liberty to take necessary legal steps for making the payment stopped as accrued through the said cheque by intimating his banker. It is agreed that the terms of the Deed shall not be deemed to be acknowledgement of any liability/wrong doing on the part of any of the parties and that the respective contention(s)/defense(s). It is agreed that in case either of the parties fail to perform any of its obligation under the compromise deed, the other party shall approach the competent Court of law for the performance of the agreement. is without compromise prejudice to the Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 2 of 7 settlement and of his affidavit dated 18.04.2016. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC303Apex 5. Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"continuation of to abuse of process of “61. 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 proceedings criminal proceedings would or tantamount law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that 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 proceedings.” 6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466 The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
"“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 3 of 7 treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29. 1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. arising those out of Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 4 of 7 7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent No.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 5 of 7 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC675the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of justified the quashing. exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts the Hon’ble Apex Court In certain cases, In the nutshell, Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 6 of 7 and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offences under Section 467/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, therefore, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.1160/2015 dated 23.09.2015 under Sections 420/467/468/4
IPC registered at Police Station Burari and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of. OCTOBER18 2016 dd (P.S.TEJI) JUDGE Crl.M.C. 1572/2016 Page 7 of 7