P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Jaspreet Singh@Golu v. State and Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Feb 2017)

There Should be no Impediment in Quashing the FIR, if COURT is Otherwise Satisfied that the Facts and Circumstances of Case so Warrant

MANU/DE/0460/2017

Criminal

Present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner, for quashing of FIR No. 604/2016, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi on basis of a mediation executed between Petitioner and Respondents Nos. 2 & 3. Respondents present in Court submitted that, dispute between parties has been amicably resolved with accused/petitioner after entering into a compromise through mediation. Respondents affirmed contents of compromise. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with Petitioner survives and so, proceedings arising out of FIR in question may be brought to an end.

Inherent powers of High Court ought to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. Respondent agreed to the quashing of criminal complaint in question and stated that matter has been settled out of her own free will. As matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in process of law if the legal proceedings between parties are carried on. Court is of opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with situation in absence of express provision of law to secure ends of justice such as, where process is abused or misused; where ends of justice cannot be secured; where process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of legal process in delivery of justice. Inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.

It is a settled law that, inherent power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. and in case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal has observed that powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when 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 High Court is convinced that, offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility 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, main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not.

In case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Apex Court laid down that if for purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of FIR/Criminal complaint becomes necessary, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Apex Court justified exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice in view of special facts and circumstances of the case, even where offences were non-compoundable.

This Court is of view that notwithstanding the fact, offence under Section 354 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. High court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.604/2016, under Section 323/354/506/509/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom against Petitioners.

Relevant : State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors., Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal

Tags : FIR   QUASHING   DISCRETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved