Through: Mr. Rashid Hahmi, Adv v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Delhi High Court · 04 Jan 2013 · 2013:DHC:69

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

2013:DHC:69

Full Text

Crl.MC 3572/2012 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th January, 2013

CRL. M.C. 3572/2012
SHRI KAPIL CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rashid Hahmi, Adv.

VERSUS

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

(ORAL)

1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of FIR No.593/2007, under Section 420/34 IPC, Police Station Paharganj and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.

2. FIR No.593/2007 was registered on the basis of the directions issued under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of a Complaint made by Respondent No.2 (Geeta Chopra).

3. The sum and substance of the averments made in the Complaint is that the Petitioner No.1 at the behest of Petitioner No.2 and 3 got a Sale Deed in respect of portion of property No.XV/3737, measuring 100 Sq.Yds., Dariba Pan, Paharganj, New Delhi executed in favour of the First Petitioner by undue influence and misconception. Several civil and criminal cases were instituted by the parties against each other. The 2013:DHC:69 Petitioner No.1 is the son and Respondent No.2 is the mother. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of Petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law of Respondent No.2.

4. The dispute was referred for Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Delhi and the parties agreed to settle all the dispute with regard to property No. XV/3737, measuring 100 Sq.Yds., Dariba Pan, Paharganj, New Delhi. It was stated that Petitioner No.1 shall be the owner of one-third share and Respondent No.2 shall be the owner of two-third share of the property. The parties agreed to withdraw all their cases and moved to Delhi High Court for quashing of the FIR.

5. It goes without saying that the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a non compoundable. In the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of quashing of FIR in non compoundable offences. Para 57 of the report is extracted hereunder:-

“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 flavour 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. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and 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.”

6. All the parties are present in person. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has entered into a Settlement dated 17.03.2012 in the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari, Delhi with the Petitioners voluntarily without any pressure, coercion or duress.

7. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners.

8. The Petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No.593/2007, under Section 420/34 of IPC, Police Station Paharganj and the proceedings arising there from as against the Petitioners are quashed, subject to Petitioners paying a sum of `50,000/- with the Blind Relief Association, Lodhi Road, New Delhi within four weeks and file a receipt with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks.

9. Pending Applications also stands disposed of.

JUDGE JANUARY 04, 2013 vk

Through: Mr. Rashid Hahmi, Adv v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation