Full Text
W.P(CRL) 3504/2016
Date ofHearing &Order: December 15 ,2016 DANNY SINGH @DENNY Petitioner
Through Mr.Jaideep Malik, Adv.
Through Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) for State with SI Vishwa Pratap, PS Model
Town.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Danny Singh for quashing of FIR No.561/2016 dated 20.10.2016, under Sections 323/341/354/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station, Model Town on the basis of a compromise deed arrived at between the petitioner and Respondents No. 2 to 4, namely, Sh. Gauarv Wadhwa, Sh. Aman Wadhwa and Smt. Sudhma Wadhwa on 27.10.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant and respondent nos. 3 & 4 have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by SI Vishwa Pratap.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 19.10.2016, the complainant had gone to purchase vegetables along with his mother, Respondent No. 4, on his scooty. On reaching the concerned shop, the W.P (CRL) 3504/2016 Page 1of[7] 2016:DHC:9153 accused/petitioner came on a motorcycle and allegedly started using dirty language asking the complainant to remove his scooty from the spot. Thereafter, on being asked to stop hurling abuses, the accused/petitioner got down ofhis motorcycle and started levying fists and kick blows upon Respondent No.2. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner also hurled abuses on the mother ofthe Respondent No.2 when she tried to intervene in the said matter, caught her by her hair, hit her on the chest and pushed her down. The Respondent No. 2 managed to fled to his house and called his father and brother (Respondent No.3) inorder to save his mother (Respondent no. 4). The accused/petitioner upon seeing Respondent No.2 bring his father and brother, started beating them along with his accomplices. Thereafter, PGR No. 100 was called and Respondent No. 4 met with Respondent No.2 informing him that her gold chain was also missing. Thereafter, through the call to the police reporting the alleged incident the FIR in question was registered against the accused/petitioner.
4. Respondent Nos.[2] to 4 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the concerned parties arriving at a compromise deed. Respondent Nos.[2] to 4 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid compromise. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question may be brought to an end. Statements of the respondent no.2 to 4 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a W.P(CRL) 3504/2016 Page 2of? compromise with the petitioner and have settled all the disputes with him. They further stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
j jiirisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." - V;'
6. Thfe aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Ap^x Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab^2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court 'm ^arinder Singh (Supra) QXQ as undoxv-
W.P (CRL) 3504/2016 Page 3 of[7] criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends ofjustice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, I' for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely % on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends ofjustice. The respondent no. 2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal W.P(CRL) 3504/2016 Page 4of? proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends ofjustice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; whejrg,|he;eBds%#ju^k:e cannot be secured; where >1. h Jt the process ofl^i^fs^usp|f^rMij4st@irnk object; to avoid the causing ofhaii&m^nfto by usirf|4tte,pr0^vision ofCr.P.C. or to avoi^h^felay ofJ^^^J|^^ss in tPk^eli^ry ofjustice. Whereas, rfhe^ inherent exercised^to circumvent the b'.. r.[1] express provisions oflaw. n ||
9. It is:i a settled lawittafi^he^filaerent power of tlfe High Court under Section The Hon'ble Apex Court ik'thfeiase^of of^Mahw^^£tt^a through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai mskhM^ and in the case of Inder Singh Gdi^mimi v. State of Uttamnchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court ifsuch power is notexercised. Court would quash theproceedings. W.P (CRL) 3504/2016 Page 5 of[7] k
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends ofjustice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State ofHaryana and another. 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex'Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C; would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends" of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354 IPC is a noncompoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the W.P(CRL) 3504/2016 Page 6 of? h FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statements made by the Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed,
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.561/2016 dated 20.10.2016, under Section 323/341/354/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station, Model Town ah^ the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed againstthe petij;ione]|.
13. This petition is accojrdingly disposed of.
DECEMBER W.P (CRL) 3504/2016 ^(P.J'.TEJ[1]) JUDGEV Page 7 of[7]