Indermeet Singh & ORS v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INDERMEET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Atul Kumar and Mr.A.K. Nigam, Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.S.C. for the State with Mr.Mallika Parmar and Mr.Ashish Negi, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 01.04.2016 1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners praying for quashing of FIR No.130/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. CAW Cell, Mahendra Park, Delhi as well as the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. 2.

Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 got married to Petitioner No.1 on 07.10.2013 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. It is further mentioned in the petition that after some time, differences arose between the couple and respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered. It is mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of above proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their disputes in the Police Station, Mahendra Park, Delhi, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

3.

Parties are present in person with their respective counsel. 4.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners in the Police Station, Mahendra Park, Delhi. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioners.

5.

The FIR registered against the present Petitioners is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is a non-compoundable offence. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code.

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.

Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and complainant submit that after the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore the FIR in question and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 7.

In view of the legal position laid down in Gian Singh's case (Supra) and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court. 8.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and quashing of FIR No.130/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. CAW Cell, Mahendra

Park, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the full and final settlement arrived at between the parties before the Police Station, Mahendra Park, Delhi.

Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

APRIL 01, 2016 'da'