Prince Aggarwal v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~75 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ PRINCE AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. C. M. Grover and Ms.

Payal Budhiraja, Advs.

with petitioner in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms.

Anuka Bachawat, Adv. for Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with SI Deepak Kumar, PS Anand Vihar.

Mr. Pramod Gupta and Ms. Nicole Gomez, Advs.

for R-2.

R-2 (through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 19.03.2024 CRL.M.A. 8640/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures) 1.

Exemption 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. 302/2022 dated 21.06.2022, for offences under Sections 420/463/464/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

('IPC'), registered at Police Station Anand Vihar. 4.

The FIR, which had been lodged by the complainant/Respondent No.2 indicates that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner is of a private nature. 5.

It is alleged that that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant through a common property agent (petitioner herein) who was taking care of the property bearing no. 115, Priya Enclave, Delhi, which belonged to Respondent No.2. It is alleged that the petitioner, handed over a forged and fabricated rent agreement to the petitioner with the purpose of creating a right and title in the property thereby, with the intention to defraud Respondent No.2. 6.

Respondent No.2 being the owner of the said property, also filed a civil suit against the petitioner to get his property vacated, before the learned Trial Court.

7.

The present petition is filed on the ground that with the intervention of family, friends and well-wishers, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 22.01.2024, on their own free will without any force, pressure, fraud, coercion or undue influence. 8.

In terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.01.2024, it is stated that the civil suit has been withdrawn by Respondent No.2 and all other terms of the settlement have been complied with.

9.

The petitioner is present in person in Court. Respondent No. 2 has joined through video conferencing. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 10.

The complainant / Respondent No. 2 states that he has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

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

11.

Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 463/464/468/471/120B of the IPC are non-compoundable.

12.

It is well settled that the High Court 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 Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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) 13.

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

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

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) 14.

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered 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 considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

15.

In view of the above, FIR No. 302/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 16.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 19, 2024 'KDK'

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