Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4001/2015
Dateof Decision : November 05^*^, 2015 VARUN KATARIA Petitioner
Through: MrJatan Singh and Mr.Sadhana Sharma, Advs.
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP.
Mr.Suraj Prakash, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Varun Kataria for quashing of FIR No.102/2015 dated 25.04.2015, under Sections 279/338 IPC registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Mr. Gagandeep at the Delhi Government Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 22.09.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 2015:DHC:11328 submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by the SI Vijay Prakash who happened to be the complainant/first informant of the FIR in question.
3. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the compromise deed, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all his claims. It is further stated in the deed that the petitioner has already paid a sum ofRs.25,000/- in cash to respondent no.2. It has also been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount shall be paid to respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question. It has also been agreed that after receiving the whole amount, the respondent no.2 shall not claim any amount from the petitioner. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid compromise deed and of his affidavit dated 24.09.2015. As per the affidavit filed by respondent no.2, he has settled all his disputes with the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 Page 2of[8] 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 which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR 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:-
5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6SCC
466. The relevant observations ofthe Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:- Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 Page 3of[8] 6^
Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 Page 4of[8] 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 inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercisedto prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of his 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 thejurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends ofjustice.
7. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation inthe 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; 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. orto avoid the delay ofthe legal process in the delivery of Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 Page 5of[8] A justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumventthe express provisions oflaw.
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 Uttaranchal MANU/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 ofthe process ofthe Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
9. 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 ofcompromise 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. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 Page 6of[8] entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case ofB.S. Joshi and others v. State ofHaryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 279 IPC is noncompoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances ofthe case so warrant. Crl.M.C. 4001/2015 Page 7of[8]
10. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.102/2015 dated 25.04.2015, under Sections 279/338 IPC registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
12. This petition is accordingly disposed of NOVEMBER 05, 2015 dd {Fprm) JUDCfe