Kamal Kumar Rai v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + KAMAL KUMAR RAI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Ms. Anita Singh, Advocates along with Petitioner in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with ASI Praveen Kumar, PS: Shaheen Bagh.

Mr. S. Oberoi, Advocate for R2/Prosecutrix alongwith R2/Prosecutrix in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 29.01.2024 1.

This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 201/2019 dated 01.08.2019 under Sections 354/354(D)/506/509 IPC registered at PS: Sunlight Colony including proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

As per the prosecution case, a complaint was received from the Respondent No.2/Complainant that the Petitioner who lived in the 2nd floor of the same building where she was residing and whom she knew since birth had been troubling her for a long time. It was alleged that he had wrong intentions and often threatened her that he would molest the Complainant if she did not marry him. When Petitioner learnt that Complainant's marriage had been fixed, he started harassing and threatening her that he will not let her get married to anyone. It is alleged that on 31.07.2019, Petitioner called The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the Complainant to ITO Metro Station, where he caught her in public and took her on the side and threatened to kill himself or the Complainant if she did not marry him. Due to this, an altercation took place later between the family members of both Petitioner and the Complainant when she informed her family members of the harassment by the Petitioner. On the basis of the complaint made by Respondent No.2, the present FIR was registered. 3.

During pendency of the criminal proceedings, parties have, with the intervention of family, common friends and relatives, resolved all their disputes and differences and filed the present petition for quashing the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. A Compromise Deed was executed between the parties on 12.01.2024, recording the terms of settlement, copy of which has been annexed to the petition. 4.

Issue notice.

5.

Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 6.

Mr. S. Oberoi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

7.

Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer ASI Praveen Kumar, PS: Shaheen Bagh. Respondent No.2 states that all issues have been amicably resolved and it would not be in her interest, if the criminal proceedings continue against the Petitioner. She thus states that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Learned APP also does not object to the FIR being quashed since parties have resolved their differences.

8.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon Badraan Punjabi v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2015/DHC/6384, wherein on account of a settlement between the parties therein, the FIR under similar provisions was quashed by the Court, in the interest of justice. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, observed that while dealing with the issue of quashing of an FIR where the parties enter into amicable resolution of disputes, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings despite a compromise between the victim and the wrong doer and if the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the High Court would be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Relevant paragraphs are as follows:- "55.

In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. xxx xxx xxx 58.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. xxx xxx xxx 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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." 10.

In a later judgment in the case of Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition and relevant paragraphs are as follows:- "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." 11.

In B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court has observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be an impediment in quashing non-compoundable offences in exercise The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the facts and circumstances of the case call upon the Court to do so in the interest of justice. It has been held in various judgments that power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equal or interchangeable in law. In Shiji alias Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, considering the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the context of noncompoundable offence observed that merely because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is no reason by itself for the High Court to refuse the exercise of its inherent power for quashing an FIR.

There is no doubt on the legal proposition that the inherent powers have to be sparingly exercised with great caution and only where the Court comes to a conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court if the power is not exercised that the Court would quash the proceedings. This Court in Laishram Premila Devi and Others v. State and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1323, while dealing with two petitions for quashing of FIRs under Sections 509/506/323/341/354/354A and 34 IPC quashed the FIRs on the ground that the Complainants in both petitions had amicably settled the matter with the respective Petitioners out of their own free will and it would be thus an abuse of the process of law, if the legal proceedings are carried on.

12.

Parties have mutually settled all their disputes and differences. In view of the settlement between the parties and the categorical stand of Respondent No.2 that she does not want to pursue the complaint, no useful purpose will be achieved in continuing the criminal proceedings emanating from the present FIR, as the chances of conviction are bleak and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings are terminated. This Court is The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

fortified in its view by the judgments of this Court in Sachin v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., CRL.M.C. 6500/2018, decided on 19.12.2018 and Dilshad v. State and Ors., CRL.M.C. 372/2019, decided on 24.01.2019, where the Courts have quashed FIRs under similar provisions, predicated on settlements between the parties, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, FIR No. 201/2019 dated 01.08.2019 under Sections 354/354(D)/506/509 IPC registered at PS: Sunlight Colony including proceedings emanating therefrom stands quashed, subject to the Petitioner depositing a cost of Rs.20,000/- in favour of 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within eight weeks from today. Details of the account are as under:- Account Name:

DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund Account Number:

15530100009730 Bank Name:

UCO Bank Branch:

Sher Shah Road, New Delhi IFSC Code:

UCBA0001553 13.

Proof in support thereof shall be filed with the Registry within one week thereafter and in case of failure to comply with the said direction, petition will be listed before Court by the Registry. 14.

Petition stands allowed and disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 29, 2024/DU The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.