Salma Begum v. The State (Govt. N.C.T. Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~125 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ SALMA BEGUM .....Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person with Ms. Hema, Mr. Sahil Khan & Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocates versus THE STATE (GOVT. N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Anil R-2 in person with Mr.

Sahil Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 23.10.2024 1.

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 189/2009 dated 04.06.2009 for offences under Sections 448/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at Police Station Seemapuri, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

2.

The charge sheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 420/448/467/468/471/506/120-B of the IPC. 3.

It is alleged that on 23.06.2007 the complainant purchased the house bearing no. E-44/C-93, New Seemapuri, Delhi from one- Rehmat Sheikh (co-accused), who subsequently executed relevant documents pertaining to the said property in favour of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the complainant. However, on 28.06.2007, the petitioner alongwith other accused persons illegally and forcibly broke open the lock of the house and entered the said property despite resistance shown by the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant of dire consequences and demanded her to vacate the said property. Further it has been alleged that the petitioner made changes in the original structures of the said property, and without obtaining consent of the complainant rented out one of the rooms of the said premises. It has been further alleged that the petitioner forged and fabricated a GPA of the said property allegedly showing the petitioner as the owner of the said property, by manipulating the property number. This incident led to the registration of the present FIR 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been unnecessarily implicated in the present case. He submits that the co-accused Rehmat Sheikh (expired on 03.01.2016) made the correction in the GPA by changing the property number and executing the same in favour of the petitioner.

5.

He submits that the petitioner had no reason to forge the documents as the documents pertaining to property No. E-44/C93 were executed by the co-accused Rehmat in favour of the petitioner.

6.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of a Memorandum of Understanding/ Compromise Deed dated 29.08.2024, with the intervention of respectable members of the society, on their own free will, without any fear, force, coercion, or undue influence. 7.

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.

8.

Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she has settled the dispute and she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR. She states that she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed.

9.

Offences under Section 420/448 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offences under Sections 467/468/471 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

10.

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

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

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

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

complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied) 12.

It is stated that all the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.08.2024 have been duly complied with. It is further stated that the possession of the said property has been already handed over by the petitioner to Respondent no.2. 13.

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 528 of the BNSS.

14.

In view of the above, FIR No. 189/2009 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 15.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 23, 2024 "KG"

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