Allowed

Sagar Suri v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2024W.P.(CRL)/1391/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 354A and 509 IPC arising from a neighbourhood parking dispute. After settlement brokered by the Standing Counsel and confirmation by the complainant that she had no grievance, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.155/2024 and all consequential proceedings quashed; pending applications disposed of.

Sagar Suri Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL) 759/2024, CRL.M.A. 13614/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13612/2024

¶4

SAGAR SURI		.....Petitioners
	Through:	Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr.
		Sagar Suri, Mr. Shashank
		Khurana, Mr. Shubham
		Gupta & Mr. Kabir Sagar
		Ghosh, Advocates
		alongwith
		petitioner-in-person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND	ANR .....Respondents
Through:	Mr. Anand V. Khatri,
	ASC-CRL for the State.
	SI Meetu Yadav & SI
	Khushboo (P.S. G.K.-I).
	Respondent
	No.2-in-Person (Through
	V.C.).

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 02.09.2024

¶9

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) seeking quashing of FIR No.155/2024 dated 16.04.2024, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash, for offences punishable under Sections 354A/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC’ ), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No.2.

¶10

It is alleged that the petitioner made obscene gestures and

¶11

Page 1 of 7

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. 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 26/11/2024 at 12:04:42

¶14

passed sexually coloured remarks in front of Respondent No.2, who is employed as a security guard at the residence of the petitioner’s neighbour. This led to the registration of the present FIR.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR arose out of prior disputes between the petitioner and his neighbour, who is the employer of Respondent No.2, in regard to parking and other issues in relation to the property.

¶16

He submits that the petitioner and his neighbours along with their respective employees are embroiled in multiple litigations over disputes in relation to the property. 5. This Court, in common order dated 16.07.2024, passed in W.P.(CRL) 2067/2024 and W.P.(CRL) 2069/2024 ( filed in relation to other disputes between the neighbours ), had noted the submission of Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State, that he would personally make an endeavour to mediate the dispute and get the matter amicably resolved.

¶17

It is stated that the matter is amicably settled with the intervention of Mr. Sanjay Lao, the learned Standing Counsel, on their own free will, without any threat, force, coercion or misrepresentation. It is also pointed out that the neighbours have also amicably entered into a settlement dated 05.08.2024 wherein it has been agreed that appropriate steps will be taken for quashing of the multiple FIRs registered by them against each other.

¶18

The petitioner is present in person in Court. Respondent No.2 has joined through video conference. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she has no remaining grievance against the petitioner. She states that she

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024

¶22

¶23

does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

¶24

Offence under Section 509 of the IPC is compoundable in nature whereas offence under Section 354A of the IPC is non-compoundable in nature. 10. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can quash 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 Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-

¶25

“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:

¶26

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.

¶27

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:

¶28

(i) ends of justice, or

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024

¶32

¶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 offender.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024

¶44

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

Page 5 of 7

¶53

W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024

¶54

¶55

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

It is stated that the dispute arose due to some issues between the petitioner and the employer of Respondent No.2. It is stated that the issues have led to a multiplicity of proceedings and multiple FIRs have been registered by the parties against each other. All the disputes have since been resolved. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no remaining grievance and she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the pendency of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court and only cause harassment and heartburn.

¶60

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, 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 W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024 Page 6 of 7

¶61

Page 6 of 7

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

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 26/11/2024 at 12:04:42

¶64

process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶65

In view of the above, FIR No. 155/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶66

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶67

Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶68

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶69

SEPTEMBER 2, 2024

¶70

‘Aman’

¶71

Page 7 of 7

¶72

W.P.(CRL) 1391/2024

¶73

This is a digitally signed order.

¶74

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 26/11/2024 at 12:04:42

Sagar Suri v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Suri v. 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

Ghuran Shah Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another

Purshottam Chopra Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sapna Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mazhar Ullah Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sajid Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Lokesh Kumar Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Subhash Sharma Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anrs

Smt. Shiksha Bansal & Ors. Vs State Anr.

Manuja Sharma Thru Spa Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rohit Malhotra Vs Neha Malhotra

Raj Kumar Vs Tarvinder Shah Singh

Brij Lal Vs Lajwanti

M/S. Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs M/S. Rao Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Ajay Durlabh Vs State of NCT of Delhi