Amardeep Singh Chadha & ANR. v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.
$~84 & 98 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4076/2024 AMARDEEP SINGH CHADHA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. G.K. Bharti & Mr.
Tanishq Khurana, Advs.
along with P-1 & P-2.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State.
WSI Ritu, PS Shalimar Bagh & WSI Manisha Sharma, main IO, PS Sarai Rohilla.
R-2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 4136/2024 & CRL.M.A. 15693/2024 AMARDEEP SINGH CHADHA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. G.K. Bharti & Mr.
Tanishq Khurana, Advs.
along with P-1 & P-2.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State.
WSI Ritu, PS Shalimar Bagh.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 20.05.2024 1.
The present petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 104/2009 dated 08.04.2009, for offences under Sections The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and FIR No.57/2014 dated 20.01.2014, for offences under Sections 323/354/379/356/109/120B of the IPC, both registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. The FIRs were registered on complaints given by Respondent No.2.
2.
Charges were framed in FIR No.104/2009 against the petitioners, in CRL.M.C. 4076/2024, for the offences under Sections 498A/34 and Sections 406/34 of the IPC by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.03.2013.
3.
Charges were framed in FIR No.57/2014 against the petitioners, in CRL.M.C. 4136/2024, for the offences under Sections 354/34, Sections 323/34 and Sections 509/34 of the IPC by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2019. 4.
It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 09.02.2003 as per Sikh rites and rituals. One child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately.
5.
Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the ACP, Crime Against Women Cell, North West District, Delhi, against Petitioner No.1 and his mother (Petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 4076/2024), alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into FIR No. 104/2009. 6.
Thereafter, Respondent No.2 made another complaint alleging that Petitioner No.1 and his brother-in-law (Petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 4136/2024) hurled abuses at her. She also alleged that Petitioner No.1 and his brother-in-law gave her beatings and used criminal force against her with an intention to outrage her modesty and dignity. The said complaint resulted in The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
FIR No.57/2014.
7.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIRs arose out of matrimonial acrimony. 8.
He submits that FIR No.57/2014 was registered after an altercation between the parties where heated words were exchanged between them. He submits that Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, in CRL.M.C. 4136/2024, are apologetic for their behaviour and they had no intention to outrage the modesty of Respondent No.2.
9.
The present petition is filed on the ground that during the pendency, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have decided to resolve their disputes amicably. It is submitted that the learned Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court by order dated 19.12.2023, in Mt case 68/2014, had also observed that the parties had settled their disputes wherein Petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay ₹21,00,000/- towards final settlement of her claims and the parties had agreed to withdraw all the pending cases instituted by them against each other and cooperate in the quashing of the present FIR.
10.
Out of the entire settlement amount, the amount of ₹11,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of quashing of the present FIRs. The learned Trial Court had also recorded separate statements of the parties to this effect.
11.
Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 12.
It is submitted that ₹10,00,000/- has already been paid to Respondent No. 2 and the remaining amount of ₹11,00,000/- is lying deposited in the form of DDs/Pay Order before the learned Family Court.
13.
The parties are present in person in Court and have been The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 14.
Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she has no grievance against the petitioners and she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIRs. She submits that she has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 15.
Offences under Sections 406/323 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offences under Sections 498A/354/356/379/109 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 16.
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 the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court had 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) 17.
Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court had 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 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.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 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."
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
(emphasis supplied) 18.It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 were married at the time of lodging of the FIRs. It is stated that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and moved on in their life. The continuation of the proceedings, in such circumstances, would serve no purpose and only cause undue harassment to the complainant.
19.
Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties 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.
20.
In view of the above, FIR No. 104/2009 and FIR No.57/2014, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
21.
The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 22.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 20, 2024 "SK"
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.