Monu Aherwar & ORS. v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~16 & 17 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 7166/2024 MONU AHERWAR & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr.

Ocean Chaudhary, Mr.

Sandeep Chaudhary and Mr. Raj Kumar, Advs.

along with petitioners in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State SI Pankaj Kumar PS Anand Vihar Mr. Ravindra Narayan, Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Joginder Kr.

Malhotra, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

+ CRL.M.C. 7195/2024 RAMESH MALHOTRA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ravindra Narayan, Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Joginder Kr.

Malhotra, Advs.

along with petitioner in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State SI Pankaj Kumar PS Anand Vihar R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 30.09.2024 CRL.M.A.

27360/2024 (for exemption) in CRL.M.C.

7166/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

CRL.M.A.

27481/2024 (for exemption) in CRL.M.C.

7195/2024 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The applications stand disposed of.

1.

The present petitions are filed seeking quashing of crossFIRs, being, FIR No. 396/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and FIR No.397/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506/509 of the IPC, both dated 17.10.2019, registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

It is averred that FIR No. 396/2019 was registered on a complaint filed by Mr. Ramesh Malhotra (Respondent No.2 in CRL.M.C. 7166/2024) alleging that pursuant to a prior dispute, on 17.10.2019, the petitioners (in CRL.M.C. 7166/2024) had beaten him with sticks and rods. It is also alleged that the chain of the complainant Ramesh was snatched by the accused persons in the altercation.

3.

It is averred that FIR No. 397/2019 was registered at the instance of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (in CRL.M.C. 7195/2024) against Mr. Ramesh Malhotra. It is alleged that Mr. Ramesh used to misbehave with one of the victims and outraged her modesty by teasing her on her way to the beauty parlour regularly. It is also alleged that when the relatives of the victim (that is, the other victims in the present FIR) interfered and confronted Mr. Ramesh about his conduct, he started beating them and threatening them with dire consequences.

4.

The charge sheets have already been filed in these cases. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

5.

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the altercation took place between the parties due to a misunderstanding and the dispute has since been resolved. 6.

The present petitions are filed on the ground that the matters are amicably settled between the parties by way of the Settlement Deed dated 05.02.2024, with the intervention of well wishers, on their own free will, without any threat, force, coercion, misrepresentation, or influences.

7.

The parties are present in person in Court today. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 8.

The petitioners unconditionally apologize for their behaviour and undertake not to indulge into any such activity in future.

9.

The parties are bound to the said undertaking. 10.

The victims, in the respective cases, on being asked, state that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs registered by them, and they have no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

11.

They submit that they have no remaining grievance and wish to live their lives peacefully in the future. 12.

Offences under Sections 323/341/506/509 of the IPC are compoundable in nature whereas offence under Sections 354/392 are non-compoundable in nature.

13.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are noncompoundable 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 Supreme 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.

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

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

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

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."

(emphasis supplied) 15.

In the present matters, the respective victims have stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, it is unlikely that the present FIRs will result in conviction when the victims do not wish to pursue the cases. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn.

16.

Keeping in view the nature of the 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 528 of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

BNSS.

17.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheets have already been filed in the respective cases and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

18.

In view of the above, FIR No. 396/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the payment of cost of ₹5,000/- by the petitioner (in CRL.M.C. 7195/2024), to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of twelve weeks from today. 19.

Similarly, FIR No. 397/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the payment of a total cost of ₹5,000/- by the petitioners (in CRL.M.C. 7166/2024), to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of twelve weeks from today. 20.

Proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.

21.

The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 22.

A copy of the order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 'Aman'

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