Dheeraj Mudgal & ORS v. The State NCT Of Delhi & ANR
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2201/2017 DHEERAJ MUDGAL & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Petitioner no. 1 through father and SPA Mr. Roshan Lal - petitioner no.2.
Petitioner nos. 3 & 4 in person.
Mr. Sahil Munjal and Mr. Vineet Aggarwal, Advs. for the petitioners.
versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Addl. PP for State with ASI Madan Mohan, PS Nangloi.
Complainant-respondent no.2 in person with counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 26.05.2017 Crl.M.A.No.9036/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed off.
Crl.M.C.No. 2201/2017 By the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, FIR No. 225/2015 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC, P.S. Nangloi, is sought to be quashed. IO identifies the parties present before the Court. Subject FIR is the off-shoot of a matrimonial dispute amongst the complainant-respondent no.2 and the petitioners and both the
parties state that they have arrived at a compromise/settlement and in pursuance thereof, a decree of divorce by mutual consent has since already been passed on 22.3.2017 by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court (West), Delhi. Today, before the Court, a demand draft favouring the complainant- respondent No.2 for Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank has also come to be handed over to her. Complainant-respondent No.2 present before the Court, states that with the receipt of the said payment today, she is left with no other claim(s) of any kind whatsoever, against the petitioners. It is also jointly stated that but for the subject FIR, all other actions/counter actions amongst the parties stand resolved.
With the compromise/settlement arrived at, not only the respective parties would get an opportunity to have better recourse for their lives, it shall bring peace and harmony in their families. In Criminal Appeal No. 686/2014 titled Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., decided on 27th March, 2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court set down the principles for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the following words : "31. 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:
(I) 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.
(II)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. (III) Such a power is not 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 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. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.
(V) 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. .........................................................................................................." Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the ends of justice would be met with, if, the subject FIR No.225/2015 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC, P.S. Nangloi be quashed alongwith consequential action(s) emanating therefrom. It is ordered accordingly.
Petition stands disposed off.
CRL. M.A.9037/2017 (stay) Dismissed as infructuous.
A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 26, 2017 rc