Veer Pratap Singh v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR. & ORS.

$~13 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ VEER PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Daljeet Dhiman, Adv.

with petitioner in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms.

Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State with Mr.

Abhijeet Kumar & Mr.

Sagar Mehlwat, Advs.

SI Naveen Sharma & SI Krishan Kumar, PSBawana, Delhi Mr. Manan Chauhan, Adv.

for R2 R2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 15.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 5696/2024 (for exemption) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeking quashing of FIR No. 40/2023 dated 09.01.2023, for the offences under Sections 498A/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at Police Station Bawana, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Respondent No. 2.

4.

It is submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 22.04.2022. The petitioner and Respondent No.2 used to live in a room at the factory where the petitioner was employed. The FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the petitioner tried to burn her. She alleged that she had an argument with the petitioner prior to the incident. She also alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner.

5.

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the petitioner, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR.

6.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties, on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2023 to this effect.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was given pursuant to a misunderstanding. He submits that it is a pure case of accident where in fact the petitioner was the one who got severely burnt. 8.

He submits that Respondent No.2/ complainant misunderstood the accident as an attempt of the petitioner to burn her.

9.

He submits that the misunderstanding between the parties has since been cleared and Respondent No.2 has realized the mistake.

10.

The parties are present before this Court in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 11.

Respondent No.2, on being asked, submits that she has The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

resolved the misunderstanding with the petitioner and she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. She submits that she has no objection if the same is quashed. 12.

Offences under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC are noncompoundable. 13.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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

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

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

(emphasis supplied) 15.

It is not in dispute that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC as alleged cannot be termed to be in personam. However, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the victim has unequivocally submitted before this Court that the FIR was lodged on a misunderstanding where she misunderstood the accident to be a deliberate attempt by the petitioner to burn her due to a previous argument between the parties. It is stated that the parties are now peacefully residing together. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the continuation of the proceedings would only cause unnecessary heart burn and further harassment to the parties.

16.

Keeping in view the nature of the injuries 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 482 of the CrPC.

17.

In view of the above, FIR No. 40/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 18.

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 15, 2024 "SS"

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