Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3534/2012
Date of Decision: 12th March, 2013 # HARPREET KAUR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
! Through: Mr. G. Rajput, Mr. Jagjit Singh and
Ms. Neetu Chauhan, Advocates
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP
P.K.BHASIN, J:
By way of this joint petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner no. 1-complainant and petitioner nos. 2 to 6-accused, against whom FIR no. 17/2011 was registered on 8th February, 2011 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at
Naraina police station, seek quashing of the said FIR in view of a compromise having been arrived at between them.
ORDER
2. Facts which led to the registration of the FIR at the instance of the petitioner no. 1-complainant, who is a widow, may be noted. She claimed to be the owner in possession of 1/4th undivided share in property bearing no. A-19, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi and as per her a 2013:DHC:1340 memorandum of family partition dated 14th July, 2008 was executed between her and her in-laws and as per the said partition deed she became the owner of the entire ground floor of the front block, half of the 3rd floor of the front block and the entire 3rd floor of the rear block with proportionate indivisible & undivided interest in the said property with stilt parking, drive way & the terrace of the 3rd floor being common. The in-laws of the complainant had allegedly evil designs to grab her property after the death of her husband in the year 2005 and with the help of builder mafia the accused persons defrauded her by forging her signatures on valuable documents. That act of her in-laws had led to the lodging of the FIR against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 by her and other civil litigations also started.
3. However, during the investigation stage itself, the parties entered into a compromise vide Compromise Deed dated 7th August, 2012, copy whereof has been annexed with this joint petition as Annexure A- 2 and now because of that compromise this petition has been filed by the complainant and the accused for quashing of the FIR in question.
4. In view of the compromise between the complainant-petitioner no. 1 and accused-petitioners no. 2-6, learned APP for the State had submitted that even the State has no objection for the quashing of the FIR since the matter was still at investigation stage.
5. A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.”,2012 (9) SCALE 257 has dealt with the aspect of quashing of FIRs etc. in respect of non-compoundable offences by the High Courts in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the complainant and the accused arrive at some compromise and the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint any further. After noticing all the earlier judgments on the point came to the following conclusions:-
6. In another judgment in the case of “Shiji @Pappu & Ors. V. Radhika, 2012 Cri.L.J 840 the Supreme Court has again reiterated that in cases where refusal to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may result in abuse of process of law, High Court can quash criminal proceedings when the disputes are settled between the complainant and the accused.
7. Since the criminal case was registered in the present case as a result of some disputes in respect of ownership of some joint property between the complainant and her in-laws and which disputes now stand settled this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings in respect of the FIR in question would be an abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice this Court should quash the FIR.
8. This petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No.17/2011 registered at Police Station Naraina is quashed. P.K. BHASIN, J MARCH 12, 2013