Harpreet Singh Jolly @ Sammi & ANR. v. State NCT Of Delhi And ANR

$~84 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ HARPREET SINGH JOLLY @ SAMMI & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Raj Kumar & Mr.

Sadiq Hussain, Advocates alongwith Petitioners-inPerson.

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

Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State alongwith SI Arvind Kumar Saini (P.S. Geeta Colony).

Ms.

Sweta Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Love Sharma, Main Counsel for Respondent No.3 alongwith Respondent No.3-inPerson.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 28.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 16807/2024 (exemption from filing copies of the annexures) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), seeking quashing of FIR No. 139/2015 dated 10.03.2015, under Sections 380/457 of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at Police Station Geeta Colony. The FIR was registered at the behest of Respondent No.2 / Complainant, against the petitioners. 4.

It is averred that between 27.02.2015 to 01.03.2015, the Petitioner No.1 along with his associate(s) had break open the locks of the shop / godown situated at the ground floor of the property bearing number 03/12, Geeta Colony, Delhi and have committed theft, of the articles present in the premises. 5.

It is stated that the parties are neighbours and are known to each other.

6.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties was in regard to financial transactions. He submits that apart from the petitioners, the chargesheet was also filed against two more co- accused persons namely, Dinesh Kumar and Sumit @ Sonu, who are stated to have since expired and therefore the proceedings qua them stands abated.

7.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Tripartite Settlement Deed/MoU dated 03.11.2023, with the intervention of friends, family, and respectable persons of society, on their own free will without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. 8.

In terms of the Tripartite Settlement Deed/MoU dated 03.11.2023, a sum of ₹8,00,000/- out of the total settlement amount of ₹11,00,000/-, already stands paid and the balance amount of ₹3,00,000/- is handed over today in Court by way of Demand Draft bearing no. 933664 dated 23.04.2024 drawn on State Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar Branch.

9.

The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

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

10.

The Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that all the disputes have been amicably settled and he does not have any objection if the proceedings are quashed.

11.

Offences under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC are noncompoundable. 12.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under CrPC 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 Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme 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.

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

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) 13.

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

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

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) 14.

The parties are neighbours and have decided to burry their disputes and to live peacefully in future.

15.

Keeping in view the nature of dispute, the fact that the parties are known to each other and have amicably entered 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 considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. 16.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of FIR No. 139/2015, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost. 17.

In view of the above, FIR No. 139/2015 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of eight weeks from today.

18.

The present petition is allowed of in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 28, 2024 'Aman'

.

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