Udai Veer vs.state & Anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1205040
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMar-23-2017
AppellantUdai Veer
RespondentState & Anr.
Excerpt:
+ in the high court of delhi at new delhi crl.m.c. 984/2017 date of hearing & order: march 23rd, 2017 udai veer state & anr. through mr.vinod kumar, adv. versus ........ petitioner through mr.panna lal sharma, app with asi ..... respondent jeet singh, ps fateh puri. respondent no.2 in person. coram: hon'ble mr. justice p.s.teji p.s.teji, j.(oral) the present petition under section 482 cr.p.c. has been filed by 1. the petitioner, namely, sh. udai veer for quashing of fir no.430/2013, under section 451/323/354/509 ipc registered at police station fateh pur beri, delhi on the basis of an amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent no.2 namely, smt. neeraj.2. respondent-state submitted that the respondent present in the court has been identified to be the complainant in the criminal complaint in question. the factual matrix of the present case is that on 22.11.2013 3. around 10am the accused who is the neighbor and relative of the complainant the in the present matter, came to the house of learned additional public prosecutor for crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 1 of 7 complainant and held her hand forcibly. upon being objected to such behavior, the accused started abusing the complainant. the complainant after the above incident got registered the fir in the present matter while also stating that the accused had indulged in such behavior on previous occasions also.4. respondent no.2 present in the court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the accused/petitioner. respondent affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. all the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint in question may be brought to an end. statement of the respondent has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise deed with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. she further stated that she has no objection if the criminal complaint in question is quashed. in gian singh v. state of punjab (2012) 10 scc303apex 5. court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-"continuation of “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 criminal proceedings would tantamount 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 to abuse of process of crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 2 of 7 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 scc466 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. crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 3 of 7 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 commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. arising those out of 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 agreed to the quashing of the criminal complaint 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 crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 4 of 7 under section 482 cr.p.c. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. the incorporation of inherent power under section 482 cr.p.c.8. 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. of v. state inder singh goswami 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 of uttaranchal case 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. it is a well settled law that where the high court is convinced 10. that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 5 of 7 in certain cases, 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. the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. in the case of b.s. joshi and others v. state of haryana and another 2003 (4) scc675the 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/criminal complaint 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. this court is of the aforesaid, in the light of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under section 354 is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the fir/criminal complaint 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, the criminal complaint in question crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 6 of 7 warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.12. accordingly, this petition is allowed and fir no.430/2013, under section 451/323/354/509 ipc registered at police station fateh pur beri, new delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.13. this petition is accordingly disposed of. march23d, 2017 dd (p.s.teji) judge crl.m.c. 984/2017 page 7 of 7
Judgment:

+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 984/2017 Date of Hearing & Order: March 23rd, 2017 UDAI VEER STATE & ANR. Through Mr.Vinod Kumar, Adv. versus ........ Petitioner

Through Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP with ASI ..... Respondent Jeet Singh, PS Fateh Puri. Respondent no.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by 1. the petitioner, namely, Sh. Udai Veer for quashing of FIR No.430/2013, under Section 451/323/354/509 IPC registered at Police Station Fateh Pur Beri, Delhi on the basis of an amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent No.2 namely, Smt. Neeraj.

2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant in the criminal complaint in question. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 22.11.2013 3. around 10AM the accused who is the neighbor and relative of the complainant the in the present matter, came to the house of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 1 of 7 complainant and held her hand forcibly. Upon being objected to such behavior, the accused started abusing the complainant. The complainant after the above incident got registered the FIR in the present matter while also stating that the accused had indulged in such behavior on previous occasions also.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the accused/petitioner. Respondent affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint in question may be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise deed with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the criminal complaint in question is quashed. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC303Apex 5. Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

"continuation of “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 criminal proceedings would tantamount 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 to abuse of process of Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 2 of 7 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 SCC466 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. Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 3 of 7 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 commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. arising those out of 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 agreed to the quashing of the criminal complaint 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 Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 4 of 7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. 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. of v. State Inder Singh Goswami 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 of Uttaranchal case 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. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced 10. that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 5 of 7 In certain cases, 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. the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC675the 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/Criminal complaint 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. this Court is of the aforesaid, In the light of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354 is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR/Criminal complaint 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, the Criminal Complaint in question Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 6 of 7 warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.430/2013, under Section 451/323/354/509 IPC registered at Police Station Fateh Pur Beri, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of. MARCH23d, 2017 dd (P.S.TEJI) JUDGE Crl.M.C. 984/2017 Page 7 of 7