Mirza Shafiq Husain v. State ( Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MIRZA SHAFIQ HUSAIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.S.N.Qureshi, Advocate with petitioner in person versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Nandita Rao, A.S.C. for the State with ASI Ravi Reddy PS Pandav Nagar Mr.Adnan Ahmad & Mr.Aqab Haider, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 05.02.2016 1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.264/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Pandav Nagar, Delhi.

2.

Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 got married to Petitioner on 16.04.2006 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. As the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 could not live together since 20.05.2014, respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents.

3.

After the separation, Respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioner, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered.

It is further mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of above proceedings, the matter was compromised between the parties. Copy of the settlement dated 14.01.2016 is annexed to the petition as Annexure B. 4.

In terms of settlement arrived at between the parties on the last date of hearing i.e 22.01.2016, the Petitioner had handed over a pay order for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant.

5.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 6.

The FIR registered is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is a non-compoundable offence. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, 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. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

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 legal position laid down in Gian Singh's case (Supra) and amicable 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 petitioner, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court.

8.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.264/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Pandav Nagar, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2016 'pg/da'