Rahul & ORS. v. The State & ANR.

$~71 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 692/2024 RAHUL & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Ms. Razia and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs.

All the petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with Insp. Sandeep Malik, PS Maidan Garhi.

Mr. Farukh Khan, Ms.

Razia, Mr. Aameer Ahmad and Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Advs. for R-2.

R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 30.01.2024 1.

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 260/2021 dated 07.10.2021, registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

2.

It is averred that the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2's daughter, was solemnized on 21.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and two children were born out of the wedlock.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

3.

It is averred that due to some misunderstandings that had occurred between the parties because of the death of the daughter of the complainant, the present FIR was lodged alleging that the complainant's daughter was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners.

4.

Even though the FIR was registered under Sections 498A/304/34 of the IPC, the chargesheet was filed only under Section 498A/34 of the IPC. The Police Authority, after investigation, had found that the death of the daughter of Respondent No. 2 was due to natural reasons.

5.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.11.2023, on their own free will without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. 6.

It is stated by the parties that the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding have been complied with. 7.

The petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present before this Court in person. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

8.

The complainant is satisfied with the report of the Police Authority and submits that the complaint was initially lodged on a misunderstanding and he does not want to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

9.

Offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable. 10.

It is well settled that the High Courts while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the CrPC on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for the High Courts while accepting settlements and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed 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 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, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."

(emphasis supplied) 11.

Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed 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 noncompoundable. 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 authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied) 12.

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

13.

It is made clear that the legal rights of the children will not be affected, in any manner, whatsoever.

14.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed in case arising from FIR No. 260/2021, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

15.

In view of the above, FIR No. 260/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of the cost of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by the petitioners to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 16.

The present petition along with the pending application(s) is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 30, 2024 'KDK'

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.