Om Prakash & ORS. v. State & ANR.

$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1264/2016 & Crl.M.A. 6642/2016 OM PRAKASH & ORS.

..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Yogesh Kumar and Mr.Gurman Chahal, Advocates.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 26.04.2016 1.

By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 220/2014 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/506/34/120-B IPC, registered at PS Dwarka (South), Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

Notice. Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State accepts notice. Status report be filed before the next date.

3.

The subject FIR came into existence on the complaint of complainant over dispute which arose between the parties over property bearing Khasra No. 5/6/2 (2-7) 5/14 (0-4), 14/2 (1-5), situated in the revenue estate of Village Najafgarh, New Delhi, colony known as Deepak Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi.

4.

It has been stated that both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement out of their own sweet will, without any pressure and force from any corner and complainant does not wish to pursue the criminal case against the Petitioners any further and want that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the Petitioners any more, therefore, the FIR may be quashed. He further submits that the Settlement deed dated 30.04.2015 has also been executed to this effect, copy of which has also been placed on record as Annexure C.

6.

Respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court today alongwith his counsel. He submits that he has amicably settled the dispute with the Petitioners and is not interested in prosecuting the Petitioners and submits that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 7.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that currently the trend emerging is to initiate criminal proceedings to pressurize the other party to settle the dispute in order to avoid arrest and prosecution, hence some cost must be imposed on the parties for wasting the precious time of the Court and using the State machinery.

8.

FIR No. 220/2014 registered for offence punishable under Sections 465/467/468/471/506/120-B IPC are non-compoundable offences. 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. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal 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.

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." 9.

In view of the aforesaid 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. 10.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the Petitioners must be burdened with cost. Accordingly, the Petitioners are directed to deposit the cost of `50,000/- with the "Army Central Welfare Fund" at Director, Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi, within four weeks from today and proof thereof shall be placed on record.

11.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 220/2014 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/506/34/120-B IPC, registered at PS Dwarka (South), Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to deposit of cost by the Petitioners herein. 12.

A copy of this order be sent to the Director, Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi for information. 13.

The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement agreement as arrived at between the parties.

Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

APRIL 26, 2016/'hkaur'