Som Shankar Thukral v. State

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Som Shankar Thukral @ Sonufor quashing of FIR No.88/2012 dated 25.07.2012, under Section 66, I.T.Act registered at Police StationEOW, Mandir Marg, Delhi on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2, namely, Isha Wadhwa at New Delhi on 03.12.2012. Crl.M.C. 2518/2013 2015:DHC:11269

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant ofthe FIR in question by her counsel.

3. Respondent Na.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement deed the respondent no.2 has no grievance or grudges against the petitioner. Further it has been stated in the MOU that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of the friends, parents and relatives. It has also been agreed between the parties that the respondent no.2 has agreed to withdraw and assist in withdrawing all cases filed by her against the petitioner and vice versa. The respondent no.2 will co-operate with the petitioner in the quashing ofthe FIR in question. Further that after the said agreement, the parties are left with no claim, right, title or interest ofany nature whatsoever against each other. The parties have also agreed to file for divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner has agreed to pay an amount ofRs.39 lacs to the respondent no. 2against all settlement/claims of any nature. Respondent no.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid MOU and of her affidavit dated 06.05.2013 supporting this petition. In her affidavit the respondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in W which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that shehasno objection if theFIR in question is quashed.

4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- "61. 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 proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would; tantamoimt to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate thatcriminal case is putto an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction toquash the criminal proceedings."

5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6 SCC

466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are 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 cruninal proceedings: 29.[1] Power confeiTed imder 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, theHigh Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the paities 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 ofjustice, or ^, (ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process ofany court. While exercising the power the HighCourtis to form anopinion oneither oftheaforesaid 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 likemurder, 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 likethePrevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public <1. Cri.M.C. 2518/2013 Page 4 of[8] 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 predommantly 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.

6. The inherentpowers ofthe High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

0 The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing ofthe FIR in question and O has stated that the matter has been settled out ofher own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends ofjustice. 7, The incorporation ofinherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; Crl.M.C. 2518/2013 Page 5of[8] where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.

8. It is settled law that the inherent power ofthe High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State ofMaharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of UttaranchalMANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is •. • not exercised, Courtwouldquashthe proceedings. d) 9. The allegations against the petitioner in the present case are that he created false accounts on Facebook and published false and malicious contents related to the complainant/respondent No.2. The petitioner uploaded various objectionable and private photographs and Crl.M.C. 2518/2013 Page 6of[8] malicious contents related to the complainant's life. After enquiry into the allegations, FIR in question under Section 66 of the I.T. Act was registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, the parties entered into said settlement, as mentioned above. The parties have already been granted a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B)(2) ofthe HMA vide order dated 24.08.2013.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced ^ that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends ofjustice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy.

11. In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between 4^, the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need tobequashed.