Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3342 (DEL)

JYOTI DALAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2016-08-29

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. Jyoti Dalal, Sh. Ranvir Singh, Smt. Raj Bala, Sh. Vinay Pratap Singh and Sh. Krishan Kumar for quashing of FIR No.202/2011 dated 10.08.2011, under Sections 448/452/379/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sagarpur on the basis of Mediation report of Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos.2 & 3 namely, Smt. Santra and Sh. Karan Singh Rathi on 08.04.2015. 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 and the respondent no.3 present in the Court has been identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by their counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that there were temperamental differences between the accused persons and the complainant & her husband due to which, the complainant and her husband disowned, the son and accused no.1/daughter in-law of the complainant on 20.01.2010 and permitted them to live on the first floor of the property bearing no. RZ-12, M Block, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, hereinafter, referred to as property in question. The daughter in-law of the complainant allegedly continued to torture and quarrel with the complainant and her husband even after the disownment and also registered several cases against the complainants. On the night of 14.06.2011, the accused no.1 allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant along with other persons, when the complainant and her husband were at their native place, by breaking open the lock fixed at the front gate. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the petitioners and the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 4. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. According to the relevant terms of the settlement, it is agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall take all her belongings from the property in question and shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the same to respondent nos. 2 & 3 and thereafter, shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the property by respondent nos. According to the relevant terms of the settlement, it is agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall take all her belongings from the property in question and shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the same to respondent nos. 2 & 3 and thereafter, shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the property by respondent nos. 2 & 3 in any manner whatsoever. It is agreed that the parties shall withdraw their respective cases/complaints filed by them against each other and shall not file any case/complaint against each other in future with respect to the present dispute, however, in case any of the parties does not abide by the terms of the settlement, then the other party shall be at the liberty to take appropriate action as per law. It is further agreed that the parties shall cooperate with each other in the legal proceedings by making appropriate statements before the concerned courts/authorities and shall bear their respective cost of litigation. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement in their respective affidavits dated 20.02.2016. In the affidavits, they have stated that they have 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. Statements of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners and have settled all the disputes with them. 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:- “61. 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:- “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 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. 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 nos. 2 & 3 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and stated that the matter has been settled out of their 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. 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; 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 Cr.P.C. 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.