Poonam Tomar & Anr. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

1. These connected petitions have been filed seeking the quashing of two cross-FIRs bearing no. 237/2016 under section 354/354(A)/506/509/323/341 IPC and 239/2016 under sections 323/341/354(A)/506 IPC, both lodged at PS Hazarat Nizamuddin.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the parties are neighbours and living in the vicinity of each other. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the above-numbered FIRs were lodged. The charges in both cases have been framed and the case is now pending at the stage of trial.

3. Learned Counsel for the parties submits that with the interventions of the well-wishers and respectable members of the society, the parties have amicably settled the disputes vide a compromise deed dated 13.12.2022. As per the compromise, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not proceed with the matters. It has also been agreed between the parties that they will maintain peace and harmony among each other and will not indulge in any further scuffle and/or heated verbal exchange in connection with and/or relating to the incident of the present matters.

4. The parties are present before this court and have duly been identified by the IO. Upon my interaction, it has been made clear that the parties are apologetic about their behaviour. They state that they have arrived at the compromise out of their own choice, free will and consent, without any pressure, undue influence or coercion. Further, they state that they have no objection if the present FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

5. The Investigating Officer also states that there are no other cases pending between the parties and that he has not received any other complaint against the parties.

6. The scope of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide but has to be exercised with circumspection. Such power has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In cases where the offences are not compoundable in nature, the parties on account of an amicable settlement may invoke the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the plea that continuance thereof would merely be an abuse of process of law.

7. In Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179, while examining the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C it was inter alia held as under:

(iii) It is the duty of the court to give “adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties” particularly in cases involving compoundable offences, the exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, not being inhibited in case of non-compoundable offences though, for the latter category, such power is to be “exercised sparingly and with caution”. (iv).If the criminal case has “overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character”, particularly if it arises out of “commercial” (financial, mercantile, partnership or such other) transaction - and this would include the “cheque bouncing cases” under Section 138 N.I. Act - or “matrimonial dispute” or “family dispute”, genuine resolution on equitable terms, in entirety, by the parties should result in criminal proceedings being quashed. (v). Since the institution of marriage has an important role to play in the society, the court is to make every effort to encourage the parties to terminate such discord amicably and if it appears that elements of settlement exist, and the parties are willing, they are to be directed to the process of mediation to explore the possibility of settlement, it being desirable to do so even at the “pre-litigation stage”. (vi). While examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, the High Court is to bear in mind as to whether the possibility of conviction is “remote and oblique” and further, if the continuation of the criminal case would lead to “oppression and prejudice” or “extreme injustice” for the accused. (vii). The considerations which would weigh with Court include the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct and that includes the question as to whether he had earlier absconded and as to how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise. (viii). But, the High Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. PC to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in “heinous” or “serious” offences, including those involving “mental depravity”, as indeed “economic offences” affecting “the financial and economic well being of the State”, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc., the reason being that such offences are “not private in nature” but have “a serious impact upon society”, and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to “overriding element of public interest”. (ix). The court, however, is not to go by mere use of label of a serious offence (e.g. offence under Section 307 IPC), it being open to it to examine, by scrutiny of the evidence gathered, to find as to whether there are sufficient grounds to frame charge for such offence and, in this view, it being “not permissible” to intervene till the matter has been properly investigated.

8. In the landmark judgment of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, it was inter alia held as under:

9. The apex court in Gian Singh (supra) also distinguished the parameters for compounding of offence and for quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement.

10. It is also relevant to note that in Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: