Rajesh Kalra And ORS v. State Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS.

$~102 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ RAJESH KALRA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Adv. for P-1 & P-2 with P1 & P-2 in person.

Mr. Arpit Batra & Mr.

Simranjeet Singh, Advs.

for P-3 & P-4 with P-3 & P-4 in person.

Mr. Rohit K. Naagpal & Mr. Deepak Sain, Advs.

for P-5, P-5 through V.C.

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

Mr.

Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.

SI Achla, PS Paschim Vihar West.

Complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 03.10.2024 CRL.M.A. 29690/2024 (exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 167/2016 dated 13.03.2016, registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, for offences under Sections 186/353/332/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. Charge sheet has been filed in the present case.

4.

It is alleged that on 12.03.2016, Respondent No. 2 while on an emergency duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, reached the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

place of occurrence, where vehicle No. 2CAS1463 Wagon R and vehicle No. DL1LS4698 Mahindra Pick-up were found in an accidental condition. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 5 (driver of Wagon R) called some known people on the spot, who are Petitioners No. 1 to 4 herein. It is alleged that thereafter all the petitioners started manhandling the driver of the Pick-up car. Respondent No. 2 along with Ct. Umed tried to protect the driver of the Pick-up car when they were physically assaulted by the Petitioners.

5.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties, by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.07.2024, of their own free will, without any pressure, force, coercion and inducement. 6.

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and the complainant are present before this Court in person. Petitioner No. 5 is present through video conferencing. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

7.

Respondent No. 2, on being asked, states that he does not wish to pursue any proceeding arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed. He states that the petitioners have since realized their mistake and have also unconditionally apologized for their behaviour.

8.

The petitioners undertake that they will not indulge into any such activity in future.

9.

Offences under Sections 186/353/332 of the IPC are noncompoundable. 10.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') (erstwhile Section 482 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) can compound offences which are non-compoundable 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 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.

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

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) 11.

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

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.

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

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."

(emphasis supplied) 12.

In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. Respondent No.2 has stated that he has no remaining grievance against the petitioners and that he is satisfied with their unconditional apology. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

undue heartburn and ill will to fester between the parties. 13.

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 BNSS.

14.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of the present FIR, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost. 15.

In view of the above, FIR No. 167/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹5,000/- by each petitioner, to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of eight weeks from the date.

16.

Let the proof of deposit of cost be deposited with the concerned SHO.

17.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 3, 2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.