This order allowed a writ petition to quash an FIR registered under various IPC sections arising from a partnership dispute. The High Court quashed the proceedings as the parties had reached an amicable mediation settlement. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.
FIR No. 785/2014 and consequential proceedings quashed subject to deposit of costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GUNVEEN SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate along with petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Avininder Singh, A.S.C. for the State with Ms.Sumi Anand, Advocate with SI Kuldeep PS Hari Nagar
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 03.02.2016
W.P.(CRL) 116/2016 & CRL.M.A.597/2016
W.P.(CRL) 116/2016
page 1 of 5
business. Pursuant to the aforesaid Partnership Deed, certain transactions took place amongst the partners and owing to the said transactions certain disputes arose. Consequently, respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioners.
prosecuting the Petitioners any more, therefore, the FIR may be quashed. 5. Respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court today alongwith his counsel. He submits that he has already received the settled amount from the Petitioners. He also affirms that he has amicably settled the dispute with the Petitioners and is not interested in prosecuting the Petitioners and submits that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 6. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that although offences under Sections 471/468/120B IPC are non-compoundable in nature, however, in view of the fact that the parties have settled the matter by way of mediation settlement and inview of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court. 6. Offences punishable under Sections 471/468/120B IPC are noncompoundable offences. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) , the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under:-
“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
W.P.(CRL) 116/2016 page 3 of 5
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
are directed to deposit the cost of Rs 50,000/- (Rs.12,500/- by each petitioner) with the “Army Central Welfare Fund” at Director, Accounts Section, Room No.281B, Ceremonial and Welfare Directorate, Adjutant General’s Branch, South Block, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi, within four weeks from today and proof thereof shall be placed on record. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 785/2014, under Sections 471/406/420/468/120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to deposit of cost by the Petitioner herein.
Order dasti .
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
FEBRUARY 03, 2016 ‘aky/da’
W.P.(CRL) 116/2016
page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR under non-compoundable offences arising from a partnership dispute can be quashed under inherent jurisdiction upon settlement.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings serves any useful purpose after an amicable settlement between parties.
Whether costs should be imposed on petitioners despite allowing the quashing of the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v State of Punjab & AnrExplained¶19
Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr 2012 (9) SCALE 257
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gunveen Singh & Ors
The State & Anr
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
