Gurdeep Singh & Anr v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

1. By way ofthis writ petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking quashing ofFIR No.I593/20I[4] under Sections 420/468/34 IPG registered at PS Rajouri Garden,Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis ofsettlement arrived at between the parties.

2. Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by the Respondent No.2 to the effect that a dispute arose over a property measuring ICQ sq. yards at 4/82, Subhash Nagar, Delhi, which led to lodging ofan FIR againstthe petitioners.

3. It is further mentioned in the petition thatparties have arrived atan amicable settlementoutoftheir own free will and out ofthe total settlement amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty lacs only), today petitioners have handed over balance amount by way of Demand Draft for Rs.11,00,000/- (RupeesElevan lacsonly) and cashfor Rs.I,50,000/- (Rupeesonelakh W.P.(CRL)927/2015 page I of[4] 2016:DHC:9290 w fifty thousand only) towards agreed compensation. The copy of supplementary settlement agreement has been annexed with the petition.

4. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are present in person with their respective counsel.

5. Respondent No.2 submits that he has entered into amicable settlement with the petitioners out ofhis own sweet will and without any fear,coercion or undue influence from any comer.Respondent No.2submitsthat he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that after the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore the FIR in question and criminal proceedingsemanating therefrom may be quashed.

7. Leamed ASC for the State/R-1 submits that since the parties have amicably arrived at an amicable settlement, appropriate orders may be passed in view ofthe observations made by the Apex Courtin Gian Singh v State ofPunjab &Anr.2012(9)SCALE257.

9. The FIR registered in this case is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/34 IPG. Offence punishable under Section 468IPG are non-compoundable offences.In the decision in the ease of Gian Singh v State ofPunjab & Anr. 2012(9)SCALE 257,the three Judges Bench ofthe Supreme Court dealing with the issue ofquashing of FIR has observed as under;- "57. The position that emergesfrom the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Courtin quashinga criminalproceedingorFIR orcomplaintin exercise ofitsinherent W.P.(CRL)927/2015, ^ page 2of[4] jurisdiction is distinct and different from the powergiven to a criminalcourtfor compounding the offences UnderSection 320of the Code. Inherent power is ofwide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in suchpower viz;(i)to secure the ends ofjustice or(ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process ofany Court. In whatcasespower to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on thefacts and circumstances ofeach case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim'sfamily and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are notprivate in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed bypublicservants while working in that capacity etc; cannotprovidefor any basisfor quashing criminal proceedings involvingsuch offences. Butthe criminalcases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on differentfooting for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership orsuch like transactions or the offences arising outof matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category ofcases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings ifin its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, thepossibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation ofcriminal case wouldput accused to great oppression andprejudice and extreme injustice would be causedto him by notquashing the criminalcase despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse ofprocess oflaw despite settlementandcompromise between the victim andwrongdoerand W.P.(CRL)927/2015 page3of[4] \b whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s)is in affirmative, the High Courtshall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminalproceeding."

9. On behalfofthe State/R-1, learned Standing Counsel further submits that some cost must be imposed on the parties for wasting the precious time ofthe Courtand using the State machinery for recovery.

10. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am ofthe considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage ofprecious time ofthe Court.

11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.1593/2014 under Sections 420/468/34 IPC registered at PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to deposit ofcost by the Petitioners herein.

12. Petitioners and respondents are directed to deposit the cost of? 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each [in total ? 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only] with the "Army Central Welfare Fund" at Director, Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD(Army),New Delhi, within two weeks from today and proofthereof shall be placed on record.

13. A copy ofthis order be sentto the Director,Accounts Section,Room N0.281B,Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, South Block,Integrated HQ ofMoD(Army),New Delhifor information. Order Dasti. APRIL01,2016 RANiTl 'da' ^