Delhi High Court - Orders
Tarun Chugh & Anr vs State & Anr on 15 December, 2022
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6814/2022
TARUN CHUGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhishek Sisodia and
Mr. Aditiya Bhardwaj,
Advs.
Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP
with SI Prem Prakash, PS
Subzi Mandi.
Mr. Anuj Rajpal, Adv. for
R-2.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 15.12.2022 CRL.M.A. 26426/2022 (exempted from filing the certified copy of the Order/ Annexures)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 6814/20221. The present petition is filed for quashing of FIR No. 35/2020 dated 11.02.2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station Subzi Mandi. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by one Ms. Ritu Rajpal, who is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the present petition.
2. It is averred that marriage between Mr. Tarun Chugh, Petitioner No. 1 and Ms. Ritu Rajpal, Respondent No.2, was solemnized on 30.11.2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
3. Owing to some misunderstanding and temperamental differences, both Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner started Signature Not Verified living separately. Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 6814/2022 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:23.12.2022 14:38:50
4. The Respondent No.2 instituted a complaint against the petitioner and his sister, which later culminated into above mentioned FIR No. 35/2020 dated 11.02.2020, under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Police Station Subzi Mandi alleging that Respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty.
5. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have with the intervention of family and friends amicably resolved their disputes on their own free will and volition, without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or duress of any nature.
6. In terms of settlement dated 25.01.2021, the decree of divorce has already been obtained on 01.11.2021. An amount of ₹1,00,000/-(One Lakh) has already been paid to Respondent No. 2 and balance settlement amount of Rs 50,000/-(Fifty Thousand) is handed over in Court today by way of Demand Draft No.715074 dated 20.09.2022 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi.
7. The parties are present and have been duly identified by the IO.
8. Offence under section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable whereas offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable.
9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under CrPC on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In Signature Not Verified Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 6814/2022 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:23.12.2022 14:38:50 (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed 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 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.
Signature Not Verified29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 6814/2022 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:23.12.2022 14:38:50 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.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
10. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
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 Signature Not Verified proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 6814/2022 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:23.12.2022 14:38:50 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.
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 Signature Not Verified criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 6814/2022 Page 5 of 6 Signing Date:23.12.2022 14:38:50 between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-
being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and it is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction can be exercised and the proceedings are quashed.
12. Thus, keeping in mind the nature of allegations, the settlement between the parties, pre-existing relationship between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, FIR No. 35/2020 and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 15, 2022 'KDK' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 6814/2022 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:23.12.2022 14:38:50