Quashed

Avijit Maikap v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2024CRL.M.C./1101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging sexual harassment and indecent assault under IPC. Court found amicable settlement due to misunderstanding. Despite non-compoundable nature of sections 354A and 354D, quashing was allowed to prevent abuse of process, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 339/2020 and all consequential proceedings quashed subject to petitioner depositing Rs 10,000 with Delhi Police Welfare Fund and Rs 10,000 with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Avijit Maikap Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1101/2024

¶4

AVIJIT MAIKAP ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kappil Cchandra, Adv.

¶5

Petitioner in person

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the State SI Jyoti, PS- Sector 23, Dwarka Respondent No. 2 (through VC)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 12.02.2024

¶11

CRL.M.A. 4358/2024 (for exemption)

¶12

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 1101/2024

¶15

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 339/2020 dated 18.08.2020 registered at Police Station Dwarka for offences under Sections 354A/354D/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), and the consequential proceedings / investigation arising out of the said FIR.

¶16

The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2/complainant in the present petition alleging that the petitioner outraged her modesty and also committed act of sexual harassment.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.11.2023 with the intervention of respectable members of the society, common friends, and well-wishers on their own free will and without any coercion or pressure, undue influence. The parties have agreed that they will approach and appear before this Court seeking quashing of FIR 339/2020.

¶20

The petitioner is present in person and Respondent No.2 is present through video conferencing, and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. The petition is also supported duly sworn in affidavits of the parties.

¶21

Respondent No. 2/ complainant, who is present through video conferencing, states that the complaint was made due to misunderstanding and she does not wish to pursue the present proceedings arising out of the present FIR.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that chargesheet has already been filed in the present case.

¶23

Offence under Sections 354A and 354D IPC are noncompoundable whereas offence under Section 506 and 509 IPC are compoundable.

¶24

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code 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 Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶28

“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

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.

¶30

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:

¶31

(i) ends of justice, or

¶32

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶33

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶34

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

¶35

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

offender.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶42

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate

¶53

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶54

Page 5 of 7

¶55

situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶56

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

¶57

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.”

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

The complainant, on being asked, has specifically stated that the complaint was given on a misunderstanding. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and 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 continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

¶60

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of FIR No. 339/2020, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.

¶61

In view of the above, FIR No. 339/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost by the petitioner of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare

¶62

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶63

Page 6 of 7

¶64

Fund and ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶65

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶66

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶67

FEBRUARY 12, 2024 “SS”

¶68

This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 1101/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:23:10

¶69

Page 7 of 7

Avijit Maikap v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avijit Maikap v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder and Ors. Vs State Goivt.of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) through SHO of Police Station Wazirabad & Anr.

Sumit Rana & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Deepankur Mittal Vs State through SHO Ps Prasad Nagar and Anr.

Yashpal Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Arpan Saxena Vs the State & Anr.