Rahul Yadav vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & … on 16 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P (CRL) 469/2017
Date of Hearing Order: May 16th, 2017

RAHUL YADAV ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Pundir, Advocate

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ANR…… Respondent

Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, Additional Standing
Counsel (Crl.) for the State
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Advocate for
respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner,
namely, Rahul Yadav for quashing of FIR No.02/2017, under Sections
506
/509/354 IPC registered at Police Station Saket, Delhi on the basis
of a settlement arrived at between the petitioner and Respondent No.
2, namely, Smt. Preeti Sandhu.

2. Learned Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent-
State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question
by the advocate for Respondent No.2.

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page1 of 7

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant
and petitioner became friends about 8 months ago. Few days prior to
filing FIR the two exchanged some hot talks. On 01.01.2017 at about
9.30pm while the complainant/respondent No.2 was coming out from
the mall after finishing her work, the petitioner met her at the mall
with another girl. The complainant told the other girl about the
character of the petitioner when he started abusing and manhandling
her. Thereafter, the FIR in question was registered against the
accused/petitioner by the complainant/Respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute
between the parties has been settled and now no dispute survives
between them.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved
through mutual consent upon the intervention of the respective family
members of both parties. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and
so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought
to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this
regard in which she stated that she has entered into a settlement with
the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with them. She further
stated that she 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

READ  Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 May, 2017

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page2 of 7
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:

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page3 of 7
(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 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
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.

READ  Bhagwana Ram vs Sonaram @ Chunaram & Ors on 6 April, 2017

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page4 of 7

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. It is a settled law that the inherent power of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v.
Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors
. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the
case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
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
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

READ  Vineet Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 July, 2017

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page5 of 7
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 ofB.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana 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 non-
compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354 IPC is a non-
compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the
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
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.

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page6 of 7

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.02/2017 under
Sections 506/509/354 IPC registered at Police Station, Saket, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the
petitioner.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MAY 16, 2017/pkb

W.P (CRL) 469/2017 Page7 of 7

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *