Vikas Sharma @ Bittu v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~128 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + VIKAS SHARMA @ BITTU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anil Hooda and Mr. Sunny Chauhan, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP with SI Vijay, PS: Connaught Place, for State.

Mr. Abhishek Srivastava and Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocates for and along with Mr. Rajeev Soni, Authorised Representative of Respondent No.2/ complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 28.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 13781/2024 (condonation of delay) 1.

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in refiling the petition.

2.

Issue notice.

3.

Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State. 4.

Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

5.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.

6.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 3594/2024 and CRL.M.A. 13779/2024 (Stay) 7.

This is a petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 492/2005 dated 28.08.2005 registered The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

under Section 420 IPC at PS: Connaught Place and the proceeding emanating therefrom. Charge Sheet has been filed and Sections 419/468/ 471/120B IPC were added.

8.

Case of the prosecution is that a written complaint was given on behalf of Citicorp Finance (India) Limited ('CFIL') against the Petitioner and one Amarjeet, who has expired in 2020, alleging that impersonating themselves as Krishan Gehlot S/o Balbir Singh and Deepak Kumar, the 2 accused availed a vehicle loan from CFIL. To secure the loan installments, Petitioner furnished certain documents and entered into an agreement and also hypothecated the vehicle. However, later CFIL received a copy of letter addressed to the SHO, Uttam Nagar and various statutory authorities from Krishan Gehlot stating that he had not taken any loan from any bank and Petitioner had impersonated him to avail the loan and enrich himself unjustly. Despite several visits by the company's representatives, neither the Petitioner paid the installments nor surrendered the vehicle. Accordingly, complaint was registered by CFIL against the Petitioner and Amarjeet, which culminated into registration of the present FIR. 9.

It is stated in the petition that during the pendency of the proceedings, parties have arrived at an out-of-court settlement, wherein it was agreed that Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to the complainant, out of which Rs.1 Lakh is stated to have been paid vide DD No.550279 dated 24.05.2023 and the balance amount was payable at the time of quashing of the FIR. 10.

Issue notice.

11.

Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 12.

Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

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

13.

Petitioner and Authorised Representative of Respondent No.2/ complainant are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer SI Vijay, PS: Connaught Place. Complainant acknowledges receipt of the balance settlement amount Rs.1 Lakh in Court today, by way of DD No.550333 dated 11.03.2024 drawn on Union Bank of India, Deepali Chowk Branch. Photocopy of the same is handed over in Court and taken on record. Authorised Representative of Respondent No.2/complainant submits that since the matter has been settled and the settlement amount has been received, complainant wants to put a quietus to the litigation and does not want to pursue the present complaint and thus has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Learned APP takes a stand that since parties have settled and the complainant does not want to prosecute the complaint any further, no purpose will be achieved in continuing the criminal proceedings. 14.

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, observed that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of quashing of an FIR where parties have entered into amicable resolution of the disputes, one of the considerations would be whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings despite the compromise and if the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the High Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, in order to ensure that the disputes are put to an end and peace is restored as securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor. This was of-course with a caveat that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or the victim's family settles the disputes with the offender. Relevant paragraphs of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the judgment are as follows:- "55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. xxx xxx xxx 58.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.

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

The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. xxx xxx xxx 61.

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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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. 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

15.

In a later judgment in the case of Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition and relevant paragraphs are as follows:- "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.

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."

16.

Parties have mutually settled all their disputes. Settlement amount has been paid to the complainant, who makes a categorical statement that he does not wish to pursue the present complaint any further. In these facts and circumstances, the chances of conviction are bleak and it would be in the interest of justice to terminate the criminal proceedings. This Court is fortified in its view by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Court in Tejpal Singh & Ors. v. The State & Anr., W.P. (CRL.) 2139/2021, decided on 15.03.2024 and Prakash Awana v. State, CRL.M.C. 791/2017 decided on 23.01.2024, wherein FIRs under similar provisions have been quashed by the Courts, based on mutual settlements between the parties. 17.

Accordingly, FIR No. 492/2005 dated 28.08.2005 registered under Section 420 IPC at PS: Connaught Place, is quashed along with proceedings emanating from the said FIR.

18.

Petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J MAY 28, 2024 B.S. Rohella The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.