Suraj Bhan v. The State NCT Of Delhi And ANR.

$~3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ SURAJ BHAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Arvind Kumar Mishra & Mr.

Ranjan Roy, Advocates alongwith Petitioner-in-Person.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State alongwith Mr.

Anurag Singh Tomar, Mr.

Arijit Mohan, Mr. Anish Kumar & Mr.

Arjun Singh, Advocates & SI Naresh Kumar (P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar).

Respondent No.2/Kajal Naggar-in-Person.

Ms.

Kiran Naggar/Complainant's Sister-in-Person (Through V.C.).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 27.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 15408/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') for quashing of FIR No. 165/2018 dated 19.07.2018, registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, for offences under Sections 354/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2. The chargesheet has already been filed in the present case.

4.

It is stated that Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner. It is stated that after the petitioner and his wife separated, Respondent No.2 along with her sister stayed with their mother. It is averred that on 19.07.2018, the petitioner came to their house and started quarrelling with Respondent No.2's mother wherein the petitioner also asked her to leave the house. It is alleged that thereafter, when the mother and sister of Respondent No.2 were leaving, the petitioner started beating Respondent No.2's sister and also threw a brick at her head. The incident led to the filing of the present FIR. 5.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.03.2024, with the intervention of family members, common friends, and well-wishers, of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure, or threat. 6.

Respondent No.2 and the petitioner are present in person before this Court. Respondent No.2's sister is present through Video Conference. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

7.

The parties state that they have amicably resolved their conflict and wish to live their lives peacefully in the future. 8.

The petitioner undertakes to not indulge into any such activities in the future.

9.

The petitioner is bound by the undertaking.

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

10.

On being asked, Respondent No.2 and her sister state that they have moved on in their lives and have forgiven their father for the mistakes he had committed.

11.

They further state that they have no grievance against their father and they do not want to pursue any proceeding arising out of the present FIR. They submit that they have no objection if the same is quashed.

12.

Offence under Section 354 of the IPC is noncompoundable whereas offence under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable.

13.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code 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 Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex 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.

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

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. 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) 14.

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

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

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 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 wellbeing 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) 15.

In the present case, Respondent No.2 and her sister, who sustained injuries in the altercation, have stated that they do not want to proceed with the complaint. The petitioner is their father and the dispute is stated to have started due to previous acrimony between the petitioner and their mother. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 and her sister do not wish to pursue the case arising out of the present FIR. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester between the parties and undue harassment to the complainant.

16.

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

have amicably entered into 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 opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

17.

In view of the above, FIR No. 165/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 18.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 27, 2024 'Aman'

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