Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1688/2023
RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajeev Pratap Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Adeeb Ul Hasan, Adv. and SI Sita Kumari, PS Prasad Nagar.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan and Mr. Jai Prakash Gautam, Advs. for R-2.
Date of Decision: 01.06.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of case FIR 0410/2022 under Sections 509 IPC registered at PS Prasad Nagar, Delhi. The chargesheet has also been filed under section 354/354(B)/34 IPC.
2. The FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant/respondent no.2 alleging therein that on the 2nd floor her brother-in-law along with his family and mother-in-law residing there and on the day of the incident after her husband had left for his work at around 10:30 am when she was standing at her gate, her brother-in-law Raj Kumar started abusing and threatened her that she and her husband will be thrown out from the home. She further alleged that her father and brother came to meet her and Raj Kumar again started abusing. It has been stated that another FIR No. 411/2022 under Section 323/341/379/34 IPC was lodged by the wife of petitioner no.1.
3. However, now the parties have entered into a settlement on the following terms and conditions:
4. IO is present in the court today and has duly identified the parties.
5. The parties state that it was property dispute within the family and the same has been settled. 8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. pre-supposes three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, i.e., (i) to give effect to an order (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of appeal or revision. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are of wide plenitude but have to be exercised sparingly with caution and only in the event when aforesaid three conditions are satisfied. The object behind the exercise of such power should be to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which the courts exist.
6. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court that when the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, and where the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them, the court may exercise power under section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as the case may be.
7. I consider that there would be no purpose of continuing with the proceedings. The parties have amicable settled the matter. In the view of the above stated facts and circumstances, FIR No. 0410/2022 under Sections 509 IPC registered at PS Prasad Nagar, Delhi. The chargesheet has also been filed under section 354/354(B)/34 IPC and all the other proceeding emanating therefrom are Quashed.
8. The present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JUNE 1, 2023