Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2806 (DEL)

KAILASH CHAND v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

2016-07-29

P.S.TEJI

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.S. TEJI, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Kailash Chand, Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Sh. Harish Chand Ravi for quashing of FIR No. 122/2013 dated 02.04.2013, under Sections 420/406/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jaitpur on the basis of Settlement deed executed between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, namely, Mr. Sarjeet Choken on 24.03.2015. 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 of the FIR in question by his counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that during the election of Municipal Corporation, petitioner no. 1 came to the office of respondent no. 2 and introduced himself as a main worker of BSP party and told complainant that the main workers of this party wished that somebody from the complainant’s family should contest the elections of Municipal Counselor, to which the complainant refused. The accused persons convinced the complainant to accede to their request and finally a form in the name of the complainant’s wife was filled up by the accused persons for which the accused persons took Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant as expenses for the same. The accused persons also took a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs from the complainant’s nephew and assured him a government job in the Bank. Later, the ticket for contesting the elections was given to somebody else and the complainant’s nephew also wasn’t given a job. Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged following which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused persons. Later, parties arrived at an amicable settlement. 4. Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the friends and family of the parties. As per the settlement, it is agreed that respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue the proceedings emanating from the FIR in question. It is agreed that there are no disputes left between the parties any further. Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 28.03.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is agreed that there are no disputes left between the parties any further. Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 28.03.2016 supporting this petition. 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 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:- “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 questions 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 Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (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 482 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 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 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 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 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 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 8.