Kuldeep v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.
$~46 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ KULDEEP .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Hemant Baisla & Mr.
Shubham Tomar, Advs.
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.
IO SI Chetan, PS Mangolpuri.
Mr.
Mukesh Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Poonam Seth & Mr. Hemant Kumar Niranjan, Advs. for R-2 along with mother of R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 01.04.2025 CRL.M.A. 2430/2025 (exemption) 1.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.
The application stands disposed of.
3.
The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 1462/2015 dated 23.07.2015, registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, for offences under Sections 354D/451/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case.
4.
The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No.2, alleging she was being harassed and teased by The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
the petitioner. It is alleged that on 17.07.2015, the petitioner forcefully entered the house of the complainant and gave her beatings. It is alleged that he threatened to kill the complainant and her family members and also threatened to throw acid on her face. This incident led to the registration of the present FIR. 5.
The learned counsel for the parties submits that the parties were neighbours at the relevant time and the FIR was registered due to a misunderstanding.
6.
They submit that the parties have since amicably settled their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.12.2024 and wish to live their lives peacefully in future. 7.
The incident took place way back in the year 2015. The parties have since moved on in life. Respondent No. 2 has since been married. She is stated to be pregnant.
8.
The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes, with the intervention of respectable members of society and their respective family members, by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.12.2024, on their own free will, without any fear, pressure, coercion, or undue influence.
9.
Mother of the complainant is present in Court today and confirms that the parties have settled their dispute. She submits that the victim at the moment is pregnant and is not in a position to appear in the Court.
10.
The statement of the victim was recorded by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).
11.
The petitioner is present in person and tenders unconditional apology for his behaviour. He undertakes not to indulge into any such activity in future. The petitioner is bound down by this undertaking.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
12.
Offence under Sections 506 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offences under Sections 354D/451 of the IPC are noncompoundable. 13.
It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme 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.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 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) 14.
Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 non-compoundable. 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 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.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
(emphasis supplied) 15.
In the present matter, the complainant has stated that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in conviction when the complainant does not wish to pursue the case and continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn. 16.
Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful 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 opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
17.
However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the present case and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.
18.
In view of the above, FIR No. 1462/2015 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the petitioner is directed to pay cost of ₹20,000/- to Delhi Police Welfare Society.
19.
Petitioner is directed to give proof of payment of cost to the concerned SHO.
20.
The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J APRIL 1, 2025 "SK"
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.