* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2120/2016 Date of Decision: October 24th, 2016 RAJ KUMAR & ANR Petitioners Through: Ms. [ENTITY], Advocate. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub- Inspector Prem Pal, Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [ENTITY], J.
1. The present petition under [SECTION] [ACT] has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] for quashing of FIR No.257/2008 dated 23.07.2008 under Sections [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar on the basis of settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, namely, Sh. [ENTITY].
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 by SI Prem Pal.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that in the year 1998, the complainant had purchased a plot bearing no. B-721, Weavers Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, hereinafter, referred to as "Property in Question", from one Sh. [ENTITY]. After some time, father of the complainant and petitioner no.1 purchased the adjoining plot i.e. Plot No. B-720 with a view that both the brothers would reside together.
Since the accused no.1 was not engaged in any work and had no income, the complainant provided funds for the construction and while the construction was going on, the complainant resided in MCD Flats, [ENTITY] Nagar. The complainant allegedly shifted to Rohini due to family disputes and on 21.02.2003, father of the complainant and the petitioner no.1 visited him and asked for the original documents of the property in question. When the complainant visited his father and the petitioner no.1, the complainant was informed that the papers of the property in question were stolen by his father and petitioner no.1. Thereafter, on 12.12.2004, the complainant came to know that some unknown people had started residing in the said property and the accused persons told him that they were only tenants. In July 2005, the complainant was shocked to learn that the petitioner no.1 had sold the property in question to the tenants by making false and fabricated documents.
Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and that he does not wish to pursue the case after the demise of his father Sh. [ENTITY], who is the other accused person in the FIR in question and due to old age of his mother, petitioner no.2 herein.
Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 24.05.2016. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no. 2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In [PRECEDENT] Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in [ENTITY] v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in [ENTITY] (Supra) are as under:-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under [SECTION] of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under [SECTION] of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under [SECTION] of the Code. No doubt, under [SECTION] of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the 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 of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 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, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the [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 of justice. The respondent no. 2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and stated that the matter has been settled out of his 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 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] [ACT] to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under [SECTION] [ACT] 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; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of [ACT] or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under [SECTION] [ACT] should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through [PRECEDENT] and in the case of [PRECEDENT] observed that powers under [SECTION] [ACT] 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 if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
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 of justice, 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 [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under [SECTION] [ACT] The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, [SECTION] [ACT] 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] [ACT] 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 non- compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offences under [SECTION] [ACT] are non-compoundable offences, therefore, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, 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 statement made by the respondent no. 2, 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.257/2008 dated 23.07.2008 under Sections [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE OCTOBER 24, 2016 dd