Gunveen Singh & ORS v. The State & ANR
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + GUNVEEN SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate along with petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in person.
versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
Mr.Avininder Singh, A.S.C. for the State with Ms.Sumi Anand, Advocate with SI Kuldeep PS Hari Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 03.02.2016 W.P.(CRL) 116/2016 & CRL.M.A.597/2016 1.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 785/2014, under Sections 471/406/420/468/120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2.
Brief facts, as mentioned in the petition are that the FIR came into existence on the complaint of Respondent No.2 as a Partnership Deed was executed amongst petitioners and respondent No.2 for running a restaurant
business. Pursuant to the aforesaid Partnership Deed, certain transactions took place amongst the partners and owing to the said transactions certain disputes arose. Consequently, respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioners.
3.
After registration of the FIR in question, petitioners filed bail applications seeking anticipatory bail. it is mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of bail applications, the matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where parties arrived at an amicable settlement. Copy of the settlement dated 25.05.2015 is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-2. As per the said said settlement agreement petitioners agreed to pay Rs.42,50,000/- (Rupees forty two lakhs fifty thousand only) to the Respondent No.2/Complainant in full and final settlement of all claims. As per agreement Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) had already been paid on 04.03.2015. In terms of Court order dated 27.05.2015 Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) was paid to Respondent No. 2, leaving a balance sum of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs fifty thousand only), which was agreed between the parties to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. 4.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have already paid an amount of Rs.28 lakhs to the complainant and Demand Draft No.011747 dated 02.02.2016 drawn on Axis Bank Sector 54, Gurgaon for the balance amount of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs fifty thousand only) is being paid to the Respondent No.2 in Court today. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in
prosecuting the Petitioners any more, therefore, the FIR may be quashed. 5.
Respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court today alongwith his counsel. He submits that he has already received the settled amount from the Petitioners. He also affirms that he has amicably settled the dispute with the Petitioners and is not interested in prosecuting the Petitioners and submits that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 6.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that although offences under Sections 471/468/120B IPC are non-compoundable in nature, however, in view of the fact that the parties have settled the matter by way of mediation settlement and inview of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court.
6.
Offences punishable under Sections 471/468/120B IPC are noncompoundable offences. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under:- "57. 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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.
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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 7.
In view of the aforesaid mediation settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court. 8.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the Petitioner must be burdened with cost. Accordingly, the Petitioners
are directed to deposit the cost of Rs 50,000/- (Rs.12,500/- by each petitioner) with the "Army Central Welfare Fund" at Director, Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi, within four weeks from today and proof thereof shall be placed on record. 9.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 785/2014, under Sections 471/406/420/468/120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to deposit of cost by the Petitioner herein.
10.
A copy of this order be sent to the Director, Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi for information. Order dasti.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
FEBRUARY 03, 2016 'aky/da'