Deepak Bhardwaj & ORS. v. The State (NCT Of Delhi) Through Sho Ps Shahdara & ANR.
$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 DEEPAK BHARDWAJ & ORS.
..... Petitioners Through:
Mr.
Jainendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate with Petitioners (through Video Conferencing).
versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO PS SHAHDARA & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with W/SI Sunita, PS: Shahdara and W/SI Pista Sharma, PS: Shahdara.
Mr. Manvendra Mukul, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
O R D E R
% 14.05.2024 1.
This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 294/2019 dated 16.11.2019 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC registered at PS: Shahdara including proceedings emanating therefrom. Charge Sheet has been filed before the Trial Court. 2.
As per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered on a complaint made by the Respondent No.2 seeking legal action against her mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law. It was stated in the complaint that Respondent No.2 married Prateek on 17.01.2019 and after her marriage, both her brothers-in-law had a bad eye on her and often touched her CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 Page 1 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
inappropriately. Complainant had attempted to make a complaint on previous occasions but compromised the matter on the asking of her husband to maintain the reputation and dignity of the family. After some months, complainant's mother-in-law sent complainant's husband to live in another accommodation and one day when complainant was 8 months pregnant, her mother-in-law pushed and kicked her causing severe pain in her stomach. In the garb of helping, her brother-in-law again attempted to touch her inappropriately and when she shouted, he left. Complainant's sister-in-law hospitalised her on the next day and she was treated, however, being unable to bear the harassment any longer, complainant filed the present complaint.
3.
It is stated in the petition that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, with the intervention of family members and common friends, parties have amicably settled all their disputes and decided to put an end to the acrimony, arising out of some misunderstandings. Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed has been executed on 01.05.2024 recording the terms of the settlement, copy of which has been annexed to the petition. 4.
Issue notice.
5.
Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 6.
Mr. Manvendra Mukul, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.
7.
Petitioners have joined the Court proceedings virtually and Respondent No. 2 is present in Court. They have been identified by their counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer W/SI Sunita, PS: Shahdara. Respondent No. 2 states that there were matrimonial differences between her and her husband which have been amicably resolved and the allegations CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 Page 2 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
against the other Petitioners were a consequence of this strained relationship. She further states that she is living at her matrimonial home happily and does not wish to prosecute the complaint as that would disrupt the harmony and cordial relationships amongst the family members and on this note it is further stated that Respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the said FIR. Learned APP also does not object to the FIR being quashed since parties have resolved their differences and are living together happily and peacefully.
8.
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 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 CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 Page 3 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 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 CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 Page 4 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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."
9.
Parties have mutually settled all their disputes. In view of the settlement between the parties and the categorical stand of Respondent No.2 CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 Page 5 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
that she does not want to pursue the complaint, as she is now living happily with Petitioners, no useful purpose will be achieved in continuing the criminal proceedings emanating from the present FIR and it would be in the interest of justice that proceedings are terminated so that peace and harmony established between the parties, continues. This Court is fortified in its view by decisions of this Court in Vikas @ Vikas Kumar & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 4019/2023, decided on 30.05.2023 and Harikant Sharma v. State/Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., W.P.(CRL.) 944/2024, decided on 21.03.2024, wherein Courts quashed FIRs under same provisions, predicated on settlements between the parties therein, in the interest of justice.
10.
Accordingly, FIR No. 294/2019 dated 16.11.2019 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC registered at PS: Shahdara is hereby quashed including proceedings emanating therefrom.
11.
Petition is allowed and disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J MAY 14, 2024/kks CRL.M.C. 3856/2024 Page 6 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.