Devi Singh & Anr. v. State & Ors.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 200/2016, under Sections 420/468/471/380/506/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Burari and proceedings emanating therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed under Sections 448/380/506/34 IPC.

2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 along with respondent No. 2 and 3 in person appear on advance notice and accept notice.

3. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered on 05.04.2016, on complaint of respondent No. 2, as there was a dispute between the parties regarding sale of part of property, which is alleged to have been forcibly occupied by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that dispute between the parties is civil in nature and civil proceedings were instituted by the petitioner. The disputes are stated to have been amicably settled in terms of Settlement dated 25.01.2024 before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

5. An amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- is stated to have been earlier paid in terms of Settlement and balance amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- has been paid to respondent no. 2 and 3 through DD No. 338891 dated 06.08.2024 drawn on Canara Bank, in favour of respondent No. 3.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 submits that the possession of the disputed plot of the premises is already with the petitioners. She further submits that document, if any in possession of respondent no. 2 and 3, shall not be used in any manner, to dispute the title of property.

7. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

8. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalized list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.

9. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be appropriately quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from serious offences, the offences which have predominant element of civil dispute or offences involving minor incidents, where the complainant/victim also stands compensated for loss, if any, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and prejudice the accused.

10. Reference may also be made to Sunil Tomar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C.1741/2021, decided on 12.04.2022 by Coordinate Bench of this Court and Rajni Khare vs. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 2930/2021, decided on 19.03.2024 by this Court, wherein the proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC were quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.

11. Petitioners and respondent no. 2 and 3 are present in person and have been identified by SI Sanjeev, PS: Burari. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 and[3] also submits that they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

12. Petitioners and respondent no. 2 and 3 intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out of property dispute. The settlement shall promote harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in life. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Further, no past involvement of the petitioners has been brought to the notice of this Court.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 200/2016, under Sections 420/448/468/471/380/506/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Burari and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.

14. In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon petitioners, they are directed to plant 25 saplings of Neem/Jamun trees each, which are upto 03 feet in height in the area of P.S.: Burari after getting in touch with the competent authority (i.e. Horticulture Department of MCD / DDA / Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) through concerned IO / SHO, P.S.: Burari. The photographs of planted saplings alongwith report of IO / SHO concerned shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of the saplings / trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case of non compliance of directions for planting of trees, the petitioners shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- each with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. AUGUST 12, 2024 p