Chandra Shekhar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

Sunil Gaur, J

In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No. 832/2014, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of IPC, is sought on the basis of affidavits of

respondents/complainant party, whereas the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No. 828/2014, under Sections 308/323/34 of IPC, both

registered at police station Kalyanpuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of the respondents/complainants.

Since these cross FIRs arise out of one incident, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned petitions have been

heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondents/complainant party of FIR No. 832/2014 as well as

respondents/complainant party in FIR No. 828/2014 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so by SI Amit Kumar, Investigating

Officer of this case on the basis of identity proof furnished by them.

Complainant party of both the FIRs present in the Court affirm the contents of their affidavits supporting the petitions and submit that incident in

question took place due to misunderstanding, which now stands cleared between the parties, who are related to each other and to restore cordiality

between the parties, the proceedings arising out of these FIRs be brought to an end.

Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are 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 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.

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 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.â€​

Since the misunderstanding which led to registration of these cross FIRs in question now stands cleared between parties, who are related to each

other, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of these FIRs would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed, and the FIR No. 832/2014, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of IPC, and FIR No. 828/2014, under Sections

308/323/34 of IPC both registered at police station Kalpyanpuri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

These petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.