Delhi High Court
Noor Salim Rana & Ors vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 22 January, 2016
Author: P.S.Teji
Bench: P.S.Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1695/2015
Date of Decision : January 22nd, 2016
NOOR SALIM RANA & ORS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Mr. Sudhir
Sukhija, Advocates
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State with
Sub-Inspector Sumer Chand, Police
Station Nabi Karim, Delhi
Mr. H.C. Yati, Mr. D.K. Yati,
Advocates for respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Noor Salim Rana, Vishal Vishnoi, Mohd. Afzal Tyagi and Manoj Sharma for quashing of FIR No.70/2009 dated 07.09.2009, under Sections 365/364A/328/344/120B/174A/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nabi Karim on the basis of the Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 1 of 9 settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, namely, Smt. Reshma Manoj Aggarwal.
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 her counsel.
3. In the present petition, FIR No. 70/2009 was lodged by Reshma Manoj Aggarwal w/o Manoj Balmukund Aggarwal on 07.09.2009 with the allegation that she is residing with her family and her husband-Manoj Balmukund Aggarwal. On 03.07.2009, Sh. Manoj Balmukund Aggarwal went to Delhi along with advocate Ramesh Nathu Shinde to attend a Court case. On 08.07.2009, she came to know from her elder brother, namely, Ashwini Aggarwal that advocate Ramesh Nathu Shinde has come back to Delhi. On 13.09.2009, she came to know from the owner of Naraina Lodge, Delhi that her husband had not come to the said Lodge since 07.07.2009. She tried contacting her husband on both his mobile numbers, but they were switched off and on the basis of the same, she suspected that her husband has been kidnapped by Rana Paper Mill. Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 2 of 9 Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the accused in which it was further alleged that in the period of absence of the husband of the complainant a ransom call was received. The charge was framed. The accused persons were absent and thus they were declared Proclaimed Offenders. Accordingly, allegation of Section 174A IPC was added. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 04.01.2013, granted anticipatory bail to the accused-Noor Salim Rana on the ground that the FIR in question is a counterblast of the case filed against the husband of the complainant i.e. FIR bearing No.58/2009. Subsequently, they entered into a compromise. No amount has been shown to have been paid as ransom amount in the present case. The husband of the complainant i.e. Manoj Aggarwal at the instance of his wife-complainant has filed an affidavit on record to the effect of entering into a compromise with the petitioners.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the FIR No. 70/2009 it was resolved between the parties that they shall co-operate with each other to withdraw or close all the pending cases filed each other. It is Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 3 of 9 submitted that respondent no.2 wrote a letter dated 02.09.2012 to the SHO, P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi to stop the investigation to close the case in view of the amicable settlement of disputes between the parties. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the settlement and of her affidavit dated 23.03.2015. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she 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 she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She 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 Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 4 of 9 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. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 5 of 9 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 has 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.
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 Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 6 of 9 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 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 Maharshtra 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 Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 7 of 9 affect public peace or tranquillity 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 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 of B.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.
Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 8 of 9
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offences under Sections 365,364A, 328,174A IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, 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.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.70/2009 dated 07.09.2009, under Sections 365/364A/328/344/120B/174A/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nabi Karim and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2016 dd Crl.M.C. 1695/2015 Page 9 of 9