Ashok Kumar Saini & Ors v. State & Anr

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. CrI.M.C. No.1645/2012

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.962/2008 under Sections 448/452/342/34 IPC registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In brief, the facts of the present case, as mentioned in the petition, are that on 20.12.2007 respondent No.2 took on rent residential property; No.192, Ground Floor, Pocket-H-1, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- in addition to water and \ 2012:DHC:8341 electricity charges for a period 11 months from its owner i.e. petitioner no.2 through petitioner No.3 and an agreement was executed by the parties in this regard on 02.01.2008. During tenancy period, respondent No.2 failed to make the payment of rent regularly and after expiry of tenancy period, instead of vacating the tenanted premises, filed a Civil Suit No.44/2008 for permanent injunction. However, the petitioners were not aware about the filing of the said case and on 21.12.2008, when the petitioners visited the tenanted premises and demanded rent, respondent No.2 did not make the payment of rent and got a false case registered against them vide FIR No.962/2008 under Section 448/342/34 IPG at PS Prashant Vihar and later on Section 452 IPG was also added in the said FIR. On 16.03.2009, petitioner No.2 also filed a Givil Suit bearing No.253/09 for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. On 11.03.2011 suit No.44/2008 filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed by the Gourt. Thereafter on 14.03.2012 in Givil Suit No.253/2009 filed by petitioner No.2, the matter was referred to Mediation and all the grievance of the parties including FIR No.962/2008 were settled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of mediation order dated 14.03.2012, the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises was handed over to the petitioner No.2 by respondent No.2 on the same day. Givil Suit No.253/2008 filed by the petitioner No.2 has also been disposed of in terms of compromise vide order dated 20.03.2012. It has been further submitted that as the parties have complied with all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at before Mediation Gentre, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.

4. Respondent No.2/complainaht also affirms that all the terms and conditions of the settlement have been complied with and she is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners and submits that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. ^

5. Offence punishable under Section 452 IPG' is a noncompoundable offence. In Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Ann in SLP (Cri.) No.8989/2010, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred three earlier decisions viz. B.S.Jostii v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nilchil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re consideration whether the aforesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not. The matter is yet to be decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court. However, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. has permitted for compounding of the offences of 'non-compoundable' category as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. even after discussing Gian Singh's case.

6. As per the decision of Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors.

V. Radhika & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on

14.11.2011, the cases of non-compoundable nature can be compounded, certainly not after the conviction, observing as under:- " That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some 'misunderstanding and misconception'; will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below."

7. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties before Mediation Centre, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose woulb be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.962/2008 under Sections 448/452/342/34 IPG, P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

9. Dasti. TT >RATIBHA RANt, J MAY 09, 2012 'St'