Delhi High Court - Orders
Amit Kumar & Anr vs State & Anr on 22 January, 2021
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 98/2021
AMIT KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ...... Respondents
Through Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
for State with S.I. Varun, P.S.
Hauz Khas
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 22.01.2021 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC is for quashing of FIR No.557/2016 dated 23.06.2016 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas for the offences under Sections 354D, 506, 509 and 34 IPC.
2. The FIR was registered on a complaint made by the respondent No.2 herein. It is stated in the complaint that she was receiving calls from various mobile numbers wherein the person making the call make obscene remarks and use abusive language.
3. It is stated that the caller used to ask the complainant to meet him and do what he says otherwise she will be eliminated. It is stated by the complainant that she made a complaint on the women helpline after which she received a call from the Hauz Khas Police Station. It is stated in the complaint that on 20.06.2016, the complainant received a call wherein again CRL.M.C. 98/2021 Page 1 of 5 the person making the call used abusive language and threatened her of dire consequences. The complainant is a lady who travels from her house to her office alone and often comes back late.
4. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was conducted, the petitioner No.1 herein was interrogated and he accepted his involvement in the present case that he has called the complainant, abused her and threatened her. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 was also interrogated who also accepted that he called the complainant from different numbers, sent her vulgar messages and abused her. A charge-sheet was filed on 04.01.2017 stating that there is sufficient evidence on record to prosecute the petitioners herein. The final report was filed for offences under Section 354D, 506 and 509.
5. The instant petition has been filed on the basis of a compromise deed executed by the petitioners herein and the respondent No.2. The compromise deed dated 10.12.2020 has been annexed with the paperbook (Annexure P3). The compromise deed records that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the parties will not communicate with each other in future and will not put or create any obstacle in each other's lives.
6. The complainant and the accused have joined the proceeding through video-conferencing. The complainant and the accused have been identified by S.I. Varun Police Station Hauz Khas. The complainant has stated that she wants to put a closure to the entire matter and does not want to proceed with the complaint. She states that after she lodged a complaint, she stopped receiving threatening calls.
7. Section 354D and Section 509 are non-compoundable offences. The CRL.M.C. 98/2021 Page 2 of 5 law for compounding non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC has been articulated by the Supreme Court in Prabatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641 which reads as under:
"16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.CRL.M.C. 98/2021 Page 3 of 5
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and"
8. Section 354D defines stalking and it provides that whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three CRL.M.C. 98/2021 Page 4 of 5 years, and shall also be liable to fine and be punished and a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Section 509 provides whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
10. In the present case, the victim does not want to proceed with the complaint and she has also stated that after she had made a complaint, she is not being harassed. In view of the compromise between the accused and the victim, there is no point continuing with the proceedings.
11. A reading of the compromise deed shows that the accused has stated that he will not in any way contact the victim again. In view of the above, the compromise is taken on record and the FIR No.557/2016 dated 23.06.2016 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas for the offences under Sections 354D, 506, 509 and 34 IPC stands quashed.
12. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
JANUARY 22, 2021 hsk CRL.M.C. 98/2021 Page 5 of 5